Teams

Gundell/Seelig

2026 Women's Day League · 3.5 Day League - Spring

13 players · average NTRP 3.33 / METROPOLITAN REGION

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2026-02-25vs Ziluca/BonillaLost 01
L#3 DoublesTracey Amdur / Karen Karlsrud vs DESIREE NARANJO / Joanna Hershon3-6, 6-4, 0-1
2026-01-27Won 10
W#3 DoublesRadhika Rathore / Tracey Amdur vs N/A6-0, 6-0
2026-01-22vs Gundell/SeeligLost 01
L#3 DoublesJasmine Corona / Tracey Amdur vs Jane Groveman / Lorri Ahl7-5, 4-6, 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 Day League - Spring 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 3.04 estimated across 8 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.

3.24
Leigh Flayton
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.22
Tracey Amdur
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.18
Jane Gundell
usually #3 Doubles 40%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published
3.11
Jane Groveman
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published
2.99
Amanda Ansell
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
2.98
Lorri Ahl
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #3 Doubles 20% · published
2.82
Sandra Borrelle
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
2.82
Elizete Groenendaal
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3
Jill Seelig
published
Marie Chandra
published
Meghan Astrachan
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Michele Hootstein
published
Patty Reitkopf
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.

Sandra Borrelle + Lorri Ahl3356% games+14.0% vs expected
Jane Gundell + Patty Reitkopf6650% games+6.3% vs expected
Sandra Borrelle + Tracey Amdur1444% games−3.3% vs expected
Leigh Flayton + Jane Gundell4449% games−3.7% vs expected
Jane Groveman + Leigh Flayton4348% games−8.0% vs expected
Sandra Borrelle + Elizete Groenendaal4742% games−11.4% vs expected
Jill Seelig + Patty Reitkopf1530% gamesnot enough data
Amanda Ansell + Elizete Groenendaal3247% gamesnot 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.

3.5
Leigh Flayton
144W–80L career · 9 lines in 2026
4%92%3%
3.24
Tracey Amdur
53W–24L career · 6 lines in 2026
6%92%2%
3.22
Jane Gundell
32W–37L career · 5 lines in 2026
10%89%1%
3.18
Jane Groveman
37W–37L career · 5 lines in 2026
21%79%<1%
3.11
3.5
Amanda Ansell
56W–76L career · 6 lines in 2026
53%47%<1%
2.99
Lorri Ahl
103W–79L career · 5 lines in 2026
<1%55%45%
2.98
Sandra Borrelle
68W–86L career · 4 lines in 2026
1%89%10%
2.82
3
Elizete Groenendaal
119W–105L career · 6 lines in 2026
1%89%9%
2.82
Jill Seelig
17W–47L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Marie Chandra
8W–14L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Meghan Astrachan
16W–26L career · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
Michele Hootstein
20W–8L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Patty Reitkopf
22W–53L career · no 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.