Teams

WI Adult 55&O 7.0W NEL WRFC Anderson Swizzle Chic

2024 WI Adult 55 & Over · WI Adult 55 & Over 7.0 Women

9 players · average NTRP 3.12 / WISCONSIN

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
L#1 DoublesJulie Kowalkowski / Cheryl Thompson vs Maureen Burke / Gail Limoni1-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesRenee Wills / Ann Neerdaels vs Diane Pavek / Lori Monette0-6, 0-6
L#3 DoublesJanis Graupman / Michelle Lampereur vs Mary Ann Christensen / Lisa Brick1-6, 1-6
L#1 DoublesMichelle Lampereur / Julie Kowalkowski vs Maureen Burke / Rosario Clifford0-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesRenee Wills / Karrie Kowalkowski vs Diane Pavek / Gail Limoni0-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesCheryl Thompson / Janis Graupman vs Beth Ryder / Mary Ann Christensen6-4, 2-6, 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 standings6 teams · WI Adult 55 & Over 7.0 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1WI Adult 55&O 7.0W NEL GBTC Smith Racquettes9126414209
2WI Adult 55&O 7.0W NEL FCRC Van Harpen Spin&Tonic82201026235
3WI Adult 55&O 7.0W NEL WRFC Shannon Deuces Wild55151534266
4WI Adult 55&O 7.0W NEL WRFC Brick Lemon Drops55151535261
5WI Adult 55&O 7.0W NEL FCRC Backus Grey Geese37131738279
6WI Adult 55&O 7.0W NEL WRFC Anderson Swizzle Chic01012959358

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 2.92 estimated across 4 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.

3.05
Bonnie Goelz
published 3.5
3.02
Julie Kowalkowski
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.82
Renee Wills
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.77
Karrie Kowalkowski
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Ann Neerdaels
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
Carol Wilinski
published 3
Cheryl Thompson
published 3
Janis Graupman
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Michelle Lampereur
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · 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.

Renee Wills + Karrie Kowalkowski2439% games−8.2% vs expected
Julie Kowalkowski + Karrie Kowalkowski2343% gamesnot enough data
Karrie Kowalkowski + Janis Graupman044 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.

3.5
Bonnie Goelz
0W–4L career · type S · no lines in 2024
35%65%<1%
3.05
Julie Kowalkowski
38W–33L career · 2 lines in 2024
<1%43%57%
3.02
Renee Wills
22W–30L career · 2 lines in 2024
1%89%10%
2.82
Karrie Kowalkowski
13W–24L career · 1 line in 2024
3%92%5%
2.77
3
Ann Neerdaels
0W–7L career · 1 line in 2024
not enough data
3
Carol Wilinski
1W–7L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
3
Cheryl Thompson
1W–3L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
Janis Graupman
2W–17L career · 2 lines in 2024
not enough data
Michelle Lampereur
1W–16L career · 2 lines in 2024
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.