Teams

Bartz/Gleason 40 Plus 3.5 Winter23

2023 Adult 40 & Over Winter · 3.5 Women

12 players · average NTRP 3.70 / NORTHERN

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2023-03-15vs Brown/LeDoux 40+ WinterWon 10
W#2 DoublesKim Bartz / Alexis Siegel-Carlson vs Barb Brown / Marnie Brown Cress5-7, 5-4
2023-03-08vs Stern/Pulling- RTC Ladies 40+ W23Won 10
W#3 DoublesKim Bartz / Amy Gleason vs Jacqueline Williams / Courtney Knutson3-6, 6-2, 1-0
2023-01-25vs Landrus 40+ W23Lost 01
L#2 DoublesAmy Gleason / Kim Bartz vs Lisa Schroeder / Lisa Stockmo6-2, 4-6, 0-1
2023-01-18vs Stern/Pulling- RTC Ladies 40+ W23Won 10
W#2 DoublesKim Bartz / Amy Gleason vs Ruth Eliason / Jacqueline Williams6-2, 6-1
2023-01-11vs Brady/Ehle Winter 40+Lost 01
L#2 DoublesKim Bartz / Amy Gleason vs Mary Henke / Heidi Johnson3-6, 7-5, 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 standings for 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 3.36 estimated across 12 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.

3.73
3.70
Martha Long
published
3.63
Carrie Chang
published 4
3.45
Amy Gleason
published 3.5
3.44
EDLYN KROENING
published 3.5
3.40
Sarah Steiniger
published
3.39
Kim Bartz
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #3 Doubles 43% · published
3.31
Nackey Piedrahita
published
3.17
Beth Arel
published 3.5
3.10
Jodi Gallup
published
3.07
Molly Dymit
published
2.94
Jennifer Lewis
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.

Sarah Steiniger + EDLYN KROENING10260% games+3.4% vs expected
Alexis Siegel-Carlson + Carrie Chang134 matchesnot enough data
Kim Bartz + EDLYN KROENING033 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.

4
Alexis Siegel-Carlson
26W–41L career · no lines in 2023
4%94%2%
3.73
Martha Long
50W–46L career · no lines in 2023
6%93%1%
3.70
4
Carrie Chang
14W–15L career · no lines in 2023
16%84%<1%
3.63
3.5
Amy Gleason
28W–33L career · no lines in 2023
<1%66%34%
3.45
3.5
EDLYN KROENING
37W–20L career · no lines in 2023
<1%67%33%
3.44
Sarah Steiniger
35W–19L career · no lines in 2023
<1%78%22%
3.40
Kim Bartz
117W–122L career · 7 lines in 2023
<1%81%19%
3.39
Nackey Piedrahita
14W–6L career · no lines in 2023
1%92%7%
3.31
3.5
Beth Arel
13W–17L career · no lines in 2023
10%90%1%
3.17
Jodi Gallup
4W–6L career · no lines in 2023
22%78%<1%
3.10
Molly Dymit
16W–44L career · no lines in 2023
29%71%<1%
3.07
Jennifer Lewis
28W–39L career · no lines in 2023
67%33%<1%
2.94

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.