Teams

Monte/Spittle/Nasvhiile

2026 Tri-Level 40 & Over - Nashville · 3.5, 3.0, 2.5 Women - Wed AM

16 players · average NTRP 3.00 / TENNESSEE

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2026-07-23vs Stemmler/NashvilleLost 01
L#3 DoublesMary Elizabeth Armor / Nancy Sutsko vs Meg Stemmler / Stephanie Sabbe3-6, 2-6
2026-07-08vs Robinson/NashvilleSplit 11
W#2 DoublesSusan Gillis / Laura Monesmith vs Hayley Robinson / Catherine Warfield6-4, 6-2
L#3 DoublesDanielle Anfuso / Mary Elizabeth Armor vs Rachel Devries / Amy Montgomery2-6, 0-6
2026-06-24vs Sanford/NashvilleWon 21
W#1 DoublesJessie Seaman / Megan McDugald vs Shannon Godsil / Penelope Sevier6-1, 6-2
L#2 DoublesKaelin Cramer / Heather Gillum vs Jelena Sanford / Emily Moore3-6, 5-7
W#3 DoublesEMILY MARTIN / Mary Elizabeth Armor vs Anna West / Janine Hopkins7-5, 6-3
2026-06-10vs Stemmler/NashvilleWon 20
W#1 DoublesJessie Seaman / Claudia Paz vs Noell Rembert / Anne Ammons6-4, 6-4
W#3 DoublesMary Elizabeth Armor / Paula Hill vs Lindsay Logan / Whitney Kemp0-6, 6-2, 1-0
2026-06-03vs Robinson/NashvilleWon 21
W#1 DoublesTraci Gilbert-Stafford / Jessie Seaman vs Abigail Regan / Catherine Warfield6-4, 7-6
L#2 DoublesTiffany King / Laura Monesmith vs Meredith Gilbertson / Rachel Devries6-3, 0-6, 0-1
W#3 DoublesMary Elizabeth Armor / EMILY MARTIN vs Brianna Healy / Elizabeth Tipton6-2, 6-0
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 standings7 teams · 3.5, 3.0, 2.5 Women - Wed AM
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Monte/Spittle/Nasvhiile5113512127
2Fisher/Bateman/Nashville5112612103
3Osborne/Nashvile4211719158
4Burke/Nashville2481023172
5Cox/Webb/Nashville2481024175
6Sanford/Nashville2471124178
7Tramontin/Nashville1521633204

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 2.82 estimated across 15 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.

3.33
Megan McDugald
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published
3.26
Claudia Paz
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published 3.5
3.17
Traci Gilbert-Stafford
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published
2.95
Jessie Seaman
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.92
EMILY MARTIN
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.91
Kaelin Cramer
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published
2.90
Olga Spittle
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.86
Tiffany King
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.86
Megan de la O
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
2.82
Laura Monesmith
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.77
Heather Gillum
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.63
Lesa Monte
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.60
Mary Elizabeth Armor
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.33
Nancy Sutsko
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.04
Danielle Anfuso
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
Paula Hill
usually #3 Doubles 100% · 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.

Jessie Seaman + Olga Spittle2551% games+9.7% vs expected
Lesa Monte + Tiffany King5351% games+3.3% vs expected
Megan de la O + Traci Gilbert-Stafford9850% games+0.4% vs expected
Kaelin Cramer + Traci Gilbert-Stafford6749% games+0.0% vs expected
Megan McDugald + Kaelin Cramer6551% games−0.1% vs expected
Megan de la O + Kaelin Cramer3245% gamesnot enough data
Megan McDugald + Traci Gilbert-Stafford1445% gamesnot enough data
Jessie Seaman + Tiffany King123 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.

Megan McDugald
18W–21L career · 5 lines in 2026
1%88%11%
3.33
3.5
Claudia Paz
25W–15L career · 5 lines in 2026
3%93%4%
3.26
Traci Gilbert-Stafford
32W–34L career · 5 lines in 2026
<1%11%89%
3.17
Jessie Seaman
21W–15L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%64%36%
2.95
EMILY MARTIN
6W–4L career · 2 lines in 2026
71%29%<1%
2.92
Kaelin Cramer
30W–25L career · 5 lines in 2026
<1%74%26%
2.91
Olga Spittle
14W–20L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%76%23%
2.90
Tiffany King
12W–17L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%83%16%
2.86
Megan de la O
21W–20L career · 3 lines in 2026
1%84%16%
2.86
Laura Monesmith
15W–16L career · 2 lines in 2026
1%89%10%
2.82
Heather Gillum
11W–18L career · 1 line in 2026
3%92%5%
2.77
Lesa Monte
12W–12L career · 1 line in 2026
18%81%<1%
2.63
Mary Elizabeth Armor
19W–17L career · 5 lines in 2026
0%24%76%
2.60
Nancy Sutsko
0W–7L career · 1 line in 2026
>99%<1%0%
2.33
2.5
Danielle Anfuso
2W–3L career · type S · 1 line in 2026
0%>99%<1%
2.04
Paula Hill
1W–0L career · 1 line 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.