Teams

CCM - Seifert

2026 Combo 18 & Over Women Night - Mobile · 5.5 Women Night

15 players · average NTRP 2.60 / ALABAMA

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2026-07-09vs Fairhope - Grissom/KaempferSplit 11
W#1 DoublesAnne Stabler / Mary Robinson vs Caroline Hall / Kristain Ledford7-5, 1-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesEmma Munderloh / Millie Seifert vs Caroline Lawrence / Chelsea Payne4-6, 1-6
2026-07-07vs MTC - CurtisLost 12
L#1 DoublesJody Brinson / Mary Robinson vs Olivia Hammond / Amber Martenstein5-7, 6-4, 0-1
L#2 DoublesNoelle Engerson / Emma Munderloh vs Nita Davis / Molly Green2-6, 3-6
W#3 DoublesMonica Nash / Alice Johnson vs Deanna Powell / Colleen Peavy6-4, 6-4
2026-06-29vs MTC - Lee/KennedyLost 12
W#1 DoublesSarah Goode / Eleni Bonneau vs Megan Pennington / Nancy Webster4-6, 6-3, 1-0
L#2 DoublesNadine Anez / Mary Robinson vs Kelly Hulak / Ann Cortopassi5-7, 5-7
L#3 DoublesMegan Jackson / Emma Munderloh vs Mary Ballard Brunson / Mary Baker0-6, 1-6
2026-06-22vs MTC - NicholsonWon 21
W#1 DoublesAlice Johnson / Anne Stabler vs Nikki Nicholson / Megan Jordan6-2, 6-4
W#2 DoublesEleni Bonneau / Jody Brinson vs Wanda Johnson / Elizabeth Boone6-2, 6-2
L#3 DoublesCaroline McGugin / Millie Seifert vs Melanie Leege / Erin Thornton1-0
2026-06-08vs Lott Park - EmmertsonWon 21
W#1 DoublesNoelle Engerson / Alice Johnson vs Misty Sabol / Nicole Langi6-1, 1-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesMillie Seifert / Emma Munderloh vs Jill Emmertson / Charlotte Baker2-6, 0-6
W#3 DoublesAnne Sand / Sarah Goode vs Natalie Barnes / Addilyn Emmertson6-3, 6-3
2026-06-01vs Spirit Park - MiddletonLost 12
L#1 DoublesSarah Goode / Mary Robinson vs Jill Taylor-Phillips / Stephanie Pansch2-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesAlice Johnson / Nadine Anez vs Jennifer Hammond / Hannah Broich4-6, 6-7
W#3 DoublesEleni Bonneau / Jody Brinson vs Amanda Montz / Kimberly Midgette6-7, 6-4, 1-0
A tie can be incomplete. Tell us if someone is missing.
i
Grouped by tie — one fixture, several lines. A line shows only when a player on it is someone we have indexed, so an early-season tie for a newly-added team can look short. This also means the line count here will not match the header, which counts individual player appearances.
Flight standings10 teams · 5.5 Women Night
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Spirit Park - Middleton511449103
2MTC - Lee/Kennedy5114411145
3Fairhope - Grissom/Kaempfer5112613120
4MTC - Pitts3371124177
5MTC - McNeil225714107
6Fairhope - Watts/Bahouth237817136
7CCM - Seifert2481024185
8Spirit Park - Kennedy2471126194
9MTC - Nicholson1441123147
10Lott Park - Emmertson1561226176

Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.

See the full flight, with every team’s record

ScoutingWhere each opponent usually plays

Signed-in extra: whether this captain plays strict strength order or mixes it up, from every doubles line they have put out. Create a free account to see it.

Roster averages 2.35 estimated across 13 rated players. No lineup is published in advance, so the column below is where each player has actually been used — a captain's habits are the best available forecast. Sign in and claim your record to see who you have played.

2.73
Anne Stabler
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.70
Noelle Engerson
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
2.66
Millie Seifert
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
2.65
Jody Brinson
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
2.62
Lacey Smith
published
2.61
Sarah Goode
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
2.39
Nadine Anez
usually #2 Doubles 83%, also #1 Doubles 17% · published
2.32
Monica Nash
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.30
Megan Jackson
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.22
Eleni Bonneau
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 2.5
1.91
Caroline McGugin
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
1.78
Anne Sand
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
1.71
Emma Munderloh
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 2.5
Lucia Lesso
published
Mary Robinson
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
Established pairs

Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.

Monica Nash + Sarah Goode6847% games+1.7% vs expected
Jody Brinson + Millie Seifert134 matchesnot enough data
Lacey Smith + Millie Seifert224 matchesnot enough data
Roster

Ordered by our estimated dynamic rating, which is why two players at the same published level are not tied — a published 4.0 says nothing about where inside the band someone sits. Lines played in this team’s season are shown beside each name.

3
Anne Stabler
7W–2L career · 2 lines in 2026
4%94%2%
2.73
Noelle Engerson
9W–26L career · 2 lines in 2026
6%93%1%
2.70
Millie Seifert
19W–23L career · 3 lines in 2026
11%89%<1%
2.66
Jody Brinson
18W–23L career · 3 lines in 2026
12%88%<1%
2.65
Lacey Smith
8W–11L career · no lines in 2026
18%82%<1%
2.62
Sarah Goode
17W–20L career · 3 lines in 2026
19%81%<1%
2.61
Nadine Anez
3W–11L career · 6 lines in 2026
0%81%19%
2.39
Monica Nash
15W–18L career · 1 line in 2026
0%91%9%
2.32
Megan Jackson
6W–10L career · 1 line in 2026
0%94%6%
2.30
2.5
Eleni Bonneau
3W–3L career · type S · 3 lines in 2026
0%98%2%
2.22
2.5
Caroline McGugin
1W–11L career · 1 line in 2026
0%>99%<1%
1.91
2.5
Anne Sand
5W–23L career · 1 line in 2026
0%>99%<1%
1.78
2.5
Emma Munderloh
2W–11L career · 4 lines in 2026
0%>99%<1%
1.71
Lucia Lesso
1W–2L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Mary Robinson
1W–4L career · 4 lines in 2026
not enough data

Three percentages are where each player stands right now: the chance they are below their band, inside it, or above it, on the way they are playing this season. The number on the right is our estimated dynamic rating, which USTA never publishes. This is today rather than a forecast of December, because a forecast has to assume future matches and cannot know whether someone will even be offered them. Percentages are blank where a player has too few matches this season, or at a level where the model does not yet beat a base-rate guess; the estimate is a weaker claim than a probability and survives where those do not.

Not affiliated with or endorsed by the USTA. Ratings labelled as published are USTA year-end figures; anything we describe as an estimate is ours, not USTA’s. Match data is from USTA TennisLink.