Teams

Eccles

Adult 18 & Over Mixed Tri-Level · 18 & Over Mixed Mid Tri-Level

17 players · average NTRP 3.78 / KANSAS

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2025-12-08Won 10
W#1 Mixed DoublesBronson Brassel / Amy Mathew vs Mel Brown / Rachel Seitz6-4, 6-3
2025-11-20vs BrownLost 01
L#1 Mixed DoublesBrian Hunter / Amy Mathew vs Mel Brown / Ashton Sparks0-6, 0-6
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 standings1 teams · 18 & Over Mixed Mid Tri-Level
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Eccles53131127228

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 3.41 estimated across 13 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.

Bronson Brassel
published 4.5
3.91
Amy Mathew
usually #1 Mixed Doubles 100% · published 4
3.76
MacY Mathew
published
3.75
Sarah Craig
published
Chris Boiteau
published 4
3.72
Destiny MacE
published 4
3.72
Rebekah Berkley
published
3.50
Ali Fakhrai
published 4
3.40
Ali Wilson
published 3.5
3.40
Mathew Sankoorikal
published
3.38
Elizabeth Herman
published 3.5
3.27
Jason Shipp
published
3.03
Kareem Thomas
published
2.90
Don Eccles
published 3.5
2.62
Danielle Kruse
published 3
Michelle Robinson
published
Tim Swope
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.

Jason Shipp + Danielle Kruse7351% games+4.9% vs expected
Ali Fakhrai + Ali Wilson71044% games+4.8% vs expected
Sarah Craig + Tim Swope71146% gamesnot enough data
Chris Boiteau + MacY Mathew6350% gamesnot enough data
Sarah Craig + Bronson Brassel5353% 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.

4.5
Bronson Brassel
6W–3L career · type S · no lines in 2026
not enough data
4
Amy Mathew
89W–121L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%76%24%
3.91
MacY Mathew
34W–64L career · no lines in 2026
2%94%3%
3.76
Sarah Craig
69W–44L career · no lines in 2026
3%95%3%
3.75
4
Chris Boiteau
51W–36L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
4
Destiny MacE
89W–85L career · no lines in 2026
5%94%2%
3.72
Rebekah Berkley
64W–17L career · no lines in 2026
5%94%1%
3.72
4
Ali Fakhrai
53W–89L career · no lines in 2026
50%50%<1%
3.50
3.5
Ali Wilson
138W–118L career · no lines in 2026
<1%77%23%
3.40
Mathew Sankoorikal
29W–51L career · no lines in 2026
<1%78%21%
3.40
3.5
Elizabeth Herman
37W–26L career · no lines in 2026
<1%83%17%
3.38
Jason Shipp
21W–17L career · no lines in 2026
96%4%<1%
3.27
Kareem Thomas
43W–29L career · no lines in 2026
<1%41%59%
3.03
3.5
Don Eccles
24W–107L career · no lines in 2026
79%21%<1%
2.90
3
Danielle Kruse
39W–50L career · no lines in 2026
17%82%<1%
2.62
Michelle Robinson
17W–10L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Tim Swope
36W–39L 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.