Teams

Burnside - 40 - LOVE

2025 Baltimore Adult 40 & Over · Baltimore Adult 40 & Over 3.5 Women

9 players · average NTRP 3.40 / MARYLAND

View scouting list →
Schedule7 played
2025-07-24vs Rauhofer - Volley GirlsSplit 11
W#1 DoublesLauren Somji / Rachel Ravalico vs Alissa Wasser / Amy Alevizatos6-4, 6-2
L#2 DoublesHeather Burnside / Julie Snavely vs Ty Cronin / Archella Dorsey2-6, 5-7
2025-07-20vs Rauhofer - Volley GirlsLost 01
L#2 DoublesNicole Lubin / Kristin Seidl vs Jennifer Rauhofer / Christina Makris4-6, 5-7
2025-07-20vs Rauhofer - Volley GirlsLost 01
L#1 DoublesJulie Snavely / Wendy Flick vs Jennifer Rauhofer / Kimberly Ford3-6, 4-6
2025-07-16vs Rauhofer - Volley GirlsSplit 11
L#2 DoublesJoy Kirk / Julie Snavely vs Ty Cronin / Kate Fleming1-6, 3-6
W#3 DoublesHeather Burnside / Kristin Nightwine vs Steffie Cannella Beck / Molly Sullivan3-6, 7-5, 1-0
2025-07-15vs Rauhofer - Volley GirlsLost 02
L#1 DoublesJulie Snavely / Nicole Conkling vs Kimberly Ford / Kimberly Sandhu3-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesHeather Burnside / Kristin Nightwine vs Sarah Walton / Steffie Cannella Beck6-7, 2-6
2025-07-02vs Rauhofer - Volley GirlsLost 02
L#1 DoublesRachel Ravalico / Lauren Somji vs Kimberly Sandhu / Ty Cronin2-6, 6-7
L#2 DoublesJoy Kirk / Julie Snavely vs Amy Alevizatos / Molly Sullivan3-6, 4-6
2025-06-25vs Rauhofer - Volley GirlsLost 02
L#1 DoublesRachel Ravalico / Lauren Somji vs Christina Makris / Kimberly Sandhu5-7, 4-6
L#3 DoublesMolly Bell / Kristin Nightwine vs Stephanie Gallagher / Steffie Cannella Beck3-6, 6-3, 0-1
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 standings for Baltimore Adult 40 & Over 3.5 Women have not been collected yet. Where we have them we show every team in the flight ranked, with this team highlighted. The crawler is still filling in older seasons and flights.

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 3.05 estimated across 7 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.

3.46
Rachel Ravalico
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.15
Julie Snavely
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.10
Ashling Pollard
published 3.5
3.05
Kristin Seidl
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.88
Kristin Nightwine
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.87
Joy Kirk
published
2.86
Nicole Lubin
published
Heather Burnside
published
Nicole Conkling
published
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.

3.5
Rachel Ravalico
25W–14L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%63%37%
3.46
3.5
Julie Snavely
35W–79L career · 8 lines in 2025
14%86%1%
3.15
3.5
Ashling Pollard
1W–3L career · no lines in 2025
25%75%<1%
3.10
3.5
Kristin Seidl
66W–77L career · 1 line in 2025
36%64%<1%
3.05
3
Kristin Nightwine
19W–24L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%79%21%
2.88
Joy Kirk
3W–4L career · no lines in 2025
82%18%<1%
2.87
Nicole Lubin
0W–3L career · no lines in 2025
84%16%<1%
2.86
Heather Burnside
0W–2L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Nicole Conkling
0W–1L career · no lines in 2025
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.