Teams

WI Adult 18&O 3.5W GML Lake Geneva Winchell

2024 WI Adult 18 & Over · WI Adult 18 & Over 3.5 (Eve) Women

12 players · average NTRP 3.57 / WISCONSIN

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
L#1 DoublesBrooke Powers / Andrea Chmelar vs Kristin Marlier / Megan Hambrook0-6, 0-6
W#1 SinglesKimberly Beres vs Mindy Harmelink6-0, 6-1
W#2 DoublesJennifer Turzenski / Rachel Hockemeyer vs Patricia Hoff / Carla Allsop6-2, 6-2
W#2 SinglesDanielle Winchell vs Kaiya Soens6-3, 6-0
L#3 DoublesGrace McKendry / Cathryn Ingram vs Amy Diestelhorst / Johanna Gross4-6, 7-6, 1-0
L#1 DoublesGrace McKendry / Cathryn Ingram vs Kerri Huebner / Deborah Dziekonski4-6, 2-6
W#1 SinglesKimberly Beres vs Linda Curtis6-2, 7-5
W#2 DoublesJennifer Turzenski / Elaine Sellenheim vs Patrice Michaels / Melissa Premeau6-4, 6-1
W#2 SinglesDanielle Winchell vs Laurie Quernemoen6-4, 4-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesJulie Arenz / Brooke Powers vs Christina Rush / Lena Vinz0-6, 1-6
L#1 DoublesJulie Arenz / Rachel Hockemeyer vs Jan Wade / Aimee Kohn3-6, 3-6
W#1 SinglesKimberly Beres vs Emily Hodge6-2, 6-2
L#2 DoublesElaine Sellenheim / Andrea Chmelar vs Wendy Schneller / Jean Muench7-5, 0-6, 0-1
W#2 SinglesDanielle Winchell vs Megan Scheff6-3, 6-2
L#3 DoublesMary Kay Rogan / Brooke Powers vs Kathy Hennig / Bonnie Starkey1-6, 7-5, 0-1
W#1 DoublesJennifer Turzenski / Andrea Chmelar vs Gabrielle Hendrix / Katie Schultz6-4, 6-3
W#1 SinglesKimberly Beres vs Bethany Girardi6-2, 6-3
W#2 DoublesElaine Sellenheim / Grace McKendry vs Tanya Kotar / Michelle Knudten6-4, 6-1
W#2 SinglesDanielle Winchell vs Kristi Luzar6-3, 6-0
L#3 DoublesBrooke Powers / Leanne Amiot vs Debra George / Natalie Hendrix0-6, 3-6
L#1 DoublesRachel Hockemeyer / Elaine Sellenheim vs Deanna Day / Kristin Joyce2-6, 2-6
W#1 SinglesKimberly Beres vs Kerri Murphy6-2, 6-4
L#2 DoublesAndrea Chmelar / Julie Arenz vs Deborah Pranke / Penny Menster4-6, 7-6, 0-1
W#2 SinglesDanielle Winchell vs Taylor Schroeder6-2, 6-4
L#3 DoublesBrooke Powers / Leanne Amiot vs Jody Kopetsky / Kim Theodorakis5-7, 3-6
W#1 DoublesRachel Hockemeyer / Jennifer Turzenski vs Susan Schmidt / Stacee Busateri6-4, 6-2
W#1 SinglesKimberly Beres vs Emily Stern6-1, 6-0
W#2 DoublesCathryn Ingram / Grace McKendry vs Rebecca Greving / Susan Giroux3-6, 6-3, 1-0
W#2 SinglesDanielle Winchell vs Julie Balboni6-2, 6-4
L#3 DoublesLeanne Amiot / Andrea Chmelar vs Julie Haeger / Katie Kennedy4-6, 4-6
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 standings15 teams · WI Adult 18 & Over 3.5 (Eve) Women
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 3.28 estimated across 6 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.

3.81
Kimberly Beres
usually #1 Singles 55%, also #2 Singles 36% · published 4
3.47
Danielle Winchell
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #3 Doubles 42% · published 4
3.33
Elaine Sellenheim
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
Andrea Chmelar
usually #1 Doubles 40%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published 3.5
3.15
Rachel Hockemeyer
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.03
Grace McKendry
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 30% · published
2.91
Cathryn Ingram
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
Brooke Powers
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 30% · published 3
Jennifer Turzenski
usually #1 Doubles 40%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published
Julie Arenz
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Leanne Amiot
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Mary Kay Rogan
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.

Danielle Winchell + Kimberly Beres5750% games+4.9% vs expected
Rachel Hockemeyer + Jennifer Turzenski3443% games+2.0% vs expected
Grace McKendry + Cathryn Ingram31140% games+0.7% vs expected
Rachel Hockemeyer + Elaine Sellenheim4451% gamesnot enough data
Rachel Hockemeyer + Grace McKendry134 matchesnot enough data
Danielle Winchell + Andrea Chmelar303 matchesnot enough data
Brooke Powers + Kimberly Beres303 matchesnot enough data
Elaine Sellenheim + Jennifer Turzenski213 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.

4
Kimberly Beres
54W–25L career · 11 lines in 2024
1%90%9%
3.81
4
Danielle Winchell
43W–46L career · 12 lines in 2024
58%42%<1%
3.47
3.5
Elaine Sellenheim
26W–19L career · 4 lines in 2024
1%88%11%
3.33
3.5
Andrea Chmelar
6W–7L career · 5 lines in 2024
not enough data
3.5
Rachel Hockemeyer
54W–37L career · 4 lines in 2024
14%85%1%
3.15
Grace McKendry
11W–19L career · 10 lines in 2024
42%58%<1%
3.03
3.5
Cathryn Ingram
18W–37L career · 3 lines in 2024
74%26%<1%
2.91
3
Brooke Powers
7W–13L career · 10 lines in 2024
not enough data
Jennifer Turzenski
16W–19L career · 5 lines in 2024
not enough data
Julie Arenz
0W–3L career · 3 lines in 2024
not enough data
Leanne Amiot
5W–11L career · 3 lines in 2024
not enough data
Mary Kay Rogan
11W–17L career · 1 line 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.