Teams

Gleason Summer Day

2025 ADULT 18 & OVER SUMMER DAYTIME · 3.5 W

18 players · average NTRP 3.36 / NORTHERN

No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.

View scouting list →
Schedule10 played
2025-07-08vs Lyons: Game, Set, Match 2025Won 10
W#3 DoublesKim Bartz / Allison Young vs Karen Hansen / Erica Berman6-2, 2-6, 1-0
2025-07-01vs Miller/GordonWon 10
W#2 DoublesRuth Eliason / Kim Bartz vs Courtney Miller / Jill Gordon7-5, 5-7, 1-0
2025-06-24vs Burt: Eastside FireballsSplit 11
W#1 DoublesKaren Saklad / Kim Bartz vs Angel Chandler / Sara Brunk2-6, 6-1, 1-0
L#2 DoublesStacy Ludwig / Ruth Eliason vs Anne Burt / Clodagh McAfee0-6, 6-7
2025-06-17vs Ehle Summer 18+ Daytime 2025Lost 13
L#1 DoublesCharlyn Francisco / Rachel Lund vs Jennifer Wenck / Susan Nixon6-7, 4-6
L#1 SinglesYuliya Navasialetskaya vs Sarah Field1-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesColleen Finnegan / Jennifer Flanigan vs Joan Cahill / Marcie Myers4-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesKatie Wernet / Karen Dewing vs Bonnie Aeling / Wendi Kelly7-6, 6-3
2025-06-10vs Koch - Westside SwingersLost 01
L#2 DoublesRuth Eliason / Karen Saklad vs Karen Galvin / Kathy Burns1-6, 7-5, 0-1
2025-06-03vs Lyons: Game, Set, Match 2025Won 10
W#2 DoublesRuth Eliason / Allison Young vs Kara Dillon / Arlene Grodnick7-5, 5-7, 1-0
2025-05-27vs Miller/GordonWon 10
W#1 DoublesAmy Gleason / Kim Bartz vs Sanni Wurst / Amy Weber6-3, 6-2
2025-05-20vs Burt: Eastside FireballsLost 13
L#1 DoublesCharlyn Francisco / Jennifer Flanigan vs Angel Chandler / Susan Volin1-6, 4-6
W#1 SinglesRachel Lund vs Molly Rarig6-4, 7-5
L#2 DoublesStacy Ludwig / Karen Saklad vs Tisha Colton / Jen Bertsch7-6, 3-6, 0-1
L#2 SinglesColleen Finnegan vs Sarah Muellenberg0-6, 6-3, 0-1
2025-05-13vs Ehle Summer 18+ Daytime 2025Lost 01
L#1 DoublesAmy Gleason / Ruth Eliason vs Laurie Ehle / Jean Kolstad6-4, 2-6, 0-1
2025-05-06vs Koch - Westside SwingersLost 01
L#1 DoublesCharlyn Francisco / Kim Bartz vs Barb Brown / Susanna Ferlito1-6, 7-5, 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 3.5 W 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 3.27 estimated across 18 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.

3.58
Rachel Lund
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.47
Sarah Curfman
published
3.46
Amy Gammill
published 3.5
3.45
Amy Gleason
published 3.5
3.42
Karen Saklad
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.40
Amy Lin
published 3.5
3.39
Kim Bartz
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published
3.37
Ruth Eliason
usually #2 Doubles 80%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published
3.36
Stacy Joslin
published
3.27
Charlyn Francisco
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.27
Yuliya Navasialetskaya
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
3.25
Stacy Ludwig
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.20
Jennifer Flanigan
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.19
Colleen Finnegan
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.09
Katie Wernet
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.94
Karen Dewing
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.90
Ann Carr
published 3
2.83
Alicia Reilly
published 3
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.

Sarah Curfman + Katie Wernet5748% games−2.1% vs expected
Ruth Eliason + Amy Gleason2446% games−4.4% vs expected
Rachel Lund + Charlyn Francisco224 matchesnot enough data
Amy Gleason + Katie Wernet224 matchesnot enough data
Colleen Finnegan + Stacy Joslin303 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.

Rachel Lund
54W–46L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%27%73%
3.58
Sarah Curfman
58W–43L career · no lines in 2025
<1%60%40%
3.47
3.5
Amy Gammill
16W–8L career · no lines in 2025
<1%63%37%
3.46
3.5
Amy Gleason
28W–33L career · no lines in 2025
<1%66%34%
3.45
Karen Saklad
26W–7L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%73%27%
3.42
3.5
Amy Lin
37W–11L career · no lines in 2025
<1%77%23%
3.40
Kim Bartz
117W–122L career · 5 lines in 2025
<1%81%19%
3.39
Ruth Eliason
263W–178L career · 5 lines in 2025
<1%84%16%
3.37
Stacy Joslin
4W–2L career · no lines in 2025
<1%86%14%
3.36
3.5
Charlyn Francisco
22W–31L career · 2 lines in 2025
2%94%4%
3.27
Yuliya Navasialetskaya
3W–1L career · 1 line in 2025
2%94%4%
3.27
Stacy Ludwig
14W–17L career · 1 line in 2025
3%95%3%
3.25
Jennifer Flanigan
18W–14L career · 2 lines in 2025
6%93%1%
3.20
3.5
Colleen Finnegan
6W–5L career · 2 lines in 2025
8%92%1%
3.19
Katie Wernet
13W–21L career · 1 line in 2025
25%75%<1%
3.09
Karen Dewing
5W–5L career · 1 line in 2025
66%34%<1%
2.94
3
Ann Carr
2W–2L career · type S · no lines in 2025
<1%77%23%
2.90
3
Alicia Reilly
14W–14L career · no lines in 2025
1%90%9%
2.83

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.