Teams

WI Combo 7.5W GML Wirth Park Harmelink

2026 WI Combo · WI Combo 7.5 Women

12 players · average NTRP 3.72 / WISCONSIN

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
W#1 DoublesKaitlin Wille / Kristin Marlier vs Nina Capati / Ellen Kelderman6-3, 6-2
W#2 DoublesLaurie Pasternak / Mary Whitfield vs Lauren Hansen / Sally Haldorson6-3, 6-0
W#3 DoublesAmelia Hagopian / Patricia Wille vs Kay Bokowy / Emily Mcelhaney3-6, 7-5, 1-0
W#1 DoublesKaitlin Wille / Karen Parks vs Peggy Munnagle / Tracy Reese6-3, 6-4
W#2 DoublesMindy Harmelink / Katie Herringa vs Kristyn Klind / Jennifer Hernandez1-6, 6-1, 1-0
W#3 DoublesSara King / Megan Hambrook vs Karen Moskow / Carol Zembinski7-5, 4-6, 1-0
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 standings for WI Combo 7.5 Women 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 3.56 estimated across 10 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.

3.90
Kaitlin Wille
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.80
Anne Daniels
published 4
3.76
Katie Herringa
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.69
Laurie Pasternak
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.47
Kristin Marlier
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.45
Mary Murtos
published 3.5
3.42
Megan Hambrook
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.37
Karen Parks
published
3.36
Amelia Hagopian
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.33
Mindy Harmelink
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Mary Whitfield
published
Sara King
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.

Kaitlin Wille + Mindy Harmelink3355% games+11.4% vs expected
Mindy Harmelink + Laurie Pasternak3350% games+10.3% vs expected
Kaitlin Wille + Laurie Pasternak7264% games+10.2% vs expected
Kristin Marlier + Kaitlin Wille7257% games+9.0% vs expected
Kristin Marlier + Laurie Pasternak5255% games+7.5% vs expected
Megan Hambrook + Kristin Marlier12657% games+7.3% vs expected
Megan Hambrook + Mindy Harmelink9656% games+1.1% vs expected
Megan Hambrook + Laurie Pasternak6354% games−1.7% vs expected
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
Kaitlin Wille
42W–21L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%75%25%
3.90
4
Anne Daniels
54W–25L career · no lines in 2026
2%91%8%
3.80
4
Katie Herringa
9W–6L career · type S · 1 line in 2026
3%93%4%
3.76
4
Laurie Pasternak
56W–62L career · type A · 1 line in 2026
9%90%1%
3.69
3.5
Kristin Marlier
66W–53L career · type A · 1 line in 2026
<1%59%41%
3.47
3.5
Mary Murtos
19W–31L career · no lines in 2026
<1%64%36%
3.45
3.5
Megan Hambrook
68W–41L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%72%28%
3.42
Karen Parks
29W–21L career · no lines in 2026
<1%82%18%
3.37
3.5
Amelia Hagopian
27W–39L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%83%16%
3.36
3.5
Mindy Harmelink
79W–96L career · 1 line in 2026
1%87%12%
3.33
Mary Whitfield
5W–10L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Sara King
3W–2L 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.