Teams

WI Combo 6.5 M NEL GBTC Oberstadt

2022 WI Combo · WI Combo 6.5 Men

8 players · average NTRP 3.17 / WISCONSIN

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
L#2 DoublesTom Leggett / Jack Palasota vs PIYUSH ATRE / Jonathan Paque7-6, 4-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesTom Leggett / Jack Palasota vs Steve Hale / Tom Lee4-6, 6-0, 0-1
W#2 DoublesTom Leggett / Jack Palasota vs Chin-Yi Lin / Pramod Shinde6-2, 4-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesTom Leggett / Jack Palasota vs PIYUSH ATRE / Jonathan Paque5-7, 6-7
2022-10-30vs WI Combo 6.5 M NEL Valley LinLost 01
L#2 DoublesTom Leggett / Jack Palasota vs Pramod Shinde / PIYUSH ATRE6-7, 6-7
L#2 DoublesTom Leggett / Jack Palasota vs Chin-Yi Lin / Pramod Shinde4-6, 5-7
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 6.5 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 2.86 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.

3.46
Tom Leggett
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
Andy Taylor
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published 3.5
3.14
Kyle Oberstadt
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published
2.84
Brandon Jonen
usually #3 Doubles 57%, also #2 Doubles 43% · published 3
2.59
Jack Palasota
usually #2 Doubles 46%, also #3 Doubles 46% · published 3
2.28
Thomas Brodhagen
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
Lucas Mullen
usually #1 Doubles 64%, also #2 Doubles 27% · published
Nathan Barash
usually #2 Doubles 44%, also #1 Doubles 38% · 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.

Lucas Mullen + Andy Taylor4845% games+10.5% vs expected
Nathan Barash + Brandon Jonen11553% games−1.4% vs expected
Tom Leggett + Jack Palasota1548% gamesnot enough data
Kyle Oberstadt + Andy Taylor2443% gamesnot enough data
Thomas Brodhagen + Andy Taylor2343% gamesnot enough data
Kyle Oberstadt + Thomas Brodhagen134 matchesnot enough data
Thomas Brodhagen + Jack Palasota134 matchesnot enough data
Tom Leggett + Lucas Mullen213 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.

Tom Leggett
47W–85L career · 12 lines in 2022
63%37%<1%
3.46
3.5
Andy Taylor
34W–56L career · 10 lines in 2022
not enough data
Kyle Oberstadt
56W–57L career · 10 lines in 2022
14%86%<1%
3.14
3
Brandon Jonen
60W–49L career · 7 lines in 2022
<1%88%11%
2.84
3
Jack Palasota
26W–52L career · type S · 11 lines in 2022
25%75%<1%
2.59
Thomas Brodhagen
13W–46L career · 4 lines in 2022
96%4%<1%
2.28
Lucas Mullen
31W–43L career · 11 lines in 2022
not enough data
Nathan Barash
114W–68L career · 16 lines in 2022
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.