Teams

Harris - Da Burgs

2025 Fredericksburg Singles · Fredericksburg Singles 4.0 Men

8 players · average NTRP 3.83 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule8 played
2025-10-06vs Alford - CFACLost 12
W#1 SinglesJason Gordon vs Eric Prostejovsky6-4, 6-4
L#2 SinglesMatt Selwyn vs Ronald Bartholomaus4-6, 7-6, 0-1
L#3 SinglesLuis Aragon vs Travis Vernon4-6, 1-6
2025-09-28vs Alford - CFACLost 12
W#1 SinglesJason Gordon vs Travis Vernon4-6, 6-3, 1-0
L#2 SinglesGregg Sprow vs Ronald Bartholomaus6-4, 4-6, 0-1
L#3 SinglesMaurice Cornejo vs Tim Alford2-6, 1-6
2025-09-22vs Alford - CFACWon 21
L#1 SinglesLuis Aragon vs Travis Vernon0-6, 1-6
W#2 SinglesOwen Seely vs Ronald Bartholomaus6-4, 4-6, 1-0
W#3 SinglesGregg Sprow vs Eric Prostejovsky6-1, 6-4
2025-09-14vs Alford - CFACLost 03
L#1 SinglesGregg Sprow vs Travis Vernon4-6, 2-6
L#2 SinglesMatt Selwyn vs Ronald Bartholomaus7-5, 1-6, 0-1
L#3 SinglesMaurice Cornejo vs Tim Alford1-6, 1-6
2025-09-08vs Alford - CFACWon 30
W#1 SinglesCody Abelende vs Tim Alford7-6, 6-3
W#2 SinglesOwen Seely vs Hugh Langford6-4, 6-3
W#3 SinglesGregg Sprow vs Phillip Brown6-0, 6-2
2025-09-07vs Alford - CFACLost 03
L#1 SinglesJason Gordon vs Travis Vernon1-6, 3-6
L#2 SinglesLuis Aragon vs Ronald Bartholomaus4-6, 1-6
L#3 SinglesMaurice Cornejo vs Tim Alford1-6, 2-6
2025-08-25vs Alford - CFACLost 12
L#1 SinglesCody Abelende vs Travis Vernon2-6, 7-5, 0-1
L#2 SinglesGregg Sprow vs Tim Alford5-7, 6-4, 0-1
W#3 SinglesOwen Seely vs Hugh Langford4-6, 6-1, 1-0
2025-08-19vs Alford - CFACWon 21
L#1 SinglesJason Gordon vs Ronald Bartholomaus4-6, 6-7
W#2 SinglesGregg Sprow vs Tim Alford7-6, 6-0
W#3 SinglesMatt Selwyn vs Hugh Langford7-6, 6-1
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 Fredericksburg Singles 4.0 Men 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 3.55 estimated across 5 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.

3.78
Owen Seely
usually #2 Singles 67%, also #3 Singles 33% · published
Cody Abelende
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 4
Gregg Sprow
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #3 Singles 33% · published 4
3.60
Jason Gordon
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
3.52
Maurice Cornejo
usually #3 Singles 100% · published
3.52
Luis Aragon
usually #3 Singles 33%, also #2 Singles 33% · published
3.31
Curtis Harris
published 3.5
Matt Selwyn
usually #2 Singles 67%, also #3 Singles 33% · 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.

Owen Seely
4W–4L career · 3 lines in 2025
2%94%5%
3.78
4
Cody Abelende
1W–1L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
4
Gregg Sprow
3W–3L career · 6 lines in 2025
not enough data
Jason Gordon
14W–11L career · 4 lines in 2025
23%77%<1%
3.60
Maurice Cornejo
4W–12L career · 3 lines in 2025
43%57%<1%
3.52
Luis Aragon
13W–15L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%43%57%
3.52
3.5
Curtis Harris
11W–6L career · no lines in 2025
1%92%7%
3.31
Matt Selwyn
1W–2L career · 3 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.