Teams

WI Tri-Level Low Mixed NEL Western Jonen

2026 WI Tri Level · WI Tri-Level Low Doubles Mixed

18 players · average NTRP 3.08 / WISCONSIN

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2026-05-01Won 10
W#3 DoublesMackenzie Wick / Brandon Jonen vs Joanie Buckley / Glen Sherman6-2, 6-2
2026-03-27Won 10
W#3 DoublesMackenzie Wick / Brandon Jonen vs Grace Kowalkowski / Brian Anderson6-3, 5-7, 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 standings3 teams · WI Tri-Level Low Doubles Mixed
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1WI Tri-Level Low Mixed NEL Western Jonen7121311159
2WI Tri-Level Low Mixed NEL Ogden McGrath53111329217
3WI Tri-Level Low Mixed NEL GBTC Kelly0842041263

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 3.30 estimated across 14 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.

3.87
Kaitlyn Jonen
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
3.79
Jacques Verbauwhede
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
3.60
Erica Shookman
usually #2 Doubles 58%, also #3 Doubles 42% · published
3.52
Abbey Grunwald
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.47
Andrew Terry
usually #3 Doubles 55%, also #2 Doubles 36% · published 3.5
3.46
Tom Leggett
usually #1 Doubles 69%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
3.37
Zachary Brandt
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.32
Natalie Brandt
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.22
Chelsea Watry
usually #3 Doubles 90%, also #2 Doubles 10% · published 3
3.12
Alison Cerny
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
3.07
Emily Wick
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.96
Mackenzie Wick
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.83
Brandon Jonen
usually #3 Doubles 55%, also #1 Doubles 36% · published 3
2.65
Blaine Springer
usually #3 Doubles 57%, also #1 Doubles 43% · published 2.5
Ethan Hoag
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published
Heather Strayer
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Kimberly Klimek
published
Susan Lin
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.

Kaitlyn Jonen + Erica Shookman10363% games+7.6% vs expected
Erica Shookman + Abbey Grunwald16368% games+4.6% vs expected
Tom Leggett + Kaitlyn Jonen4546% gamesnot enough data
Jacques Verbauwhede + Andrew Terry5361% gamesnot enough data
Jacques Verbauwhede + Tom Leggett4348% gamesnot enough data
Emily Wick + Mackenzie Wick5154% gamesnot enough data
Heather Strayer + Zachary Brandt5064% gamesnot enough data
Jacques Verbauwhede + Brandon Jonen404 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.

Kaitlyn Jonen
82W–46L career · 12 lines in 2026
<1%82%18%
3.87
Jacques Verbauwhede
69W–45L career · 16 lines in 2026
2%92%6%
3.79
Erica Shookman
77W–24L career · 12 lines in 2026
<1%24%76%
3.60
3.5
Abbey Grunwald
26W–10L career · 7 lines in 2026
<1%43%57%
3.52
3.5
Andrew Terry
56W–28L career · 11 lines in 2026
<1%58%42%
3.47
Tom Leggett
33W–51L career · 16 lines in 2026
60%40%<1%
3.46
Zachary Brandt
83W–36L career · 7 lines in 2026
<1%81%18%
3.37
Natalie Brandt
48W–31L career · 6 lines in 2026
1%89%10%
3.32
3
Chelsea Watry
77W–35L career · 10 lines in 2026
<1%6%94%
3.22
3
Alison Cerny
22W–4L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%20%80%
3.12
Emily Wick
37W–9L career · 6 lines in 2026
<1%31%69%
3.07
Mackenzie Wick
22W–9L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%62%38%
2.96
3
Brandon Jonen
41W–41L career · 11 lines in 2026
1%88%11%
2.83
2.5
Blaine Springer
10W–9L career · type S · 7 lines in 2026
0%14%86%
2.65
Ethan Hoag
29W–17L career · 14 lines in 2026
not enough data
Heather Strayer
43W–26L career · 6 lines in 2026
not enough data
Kimberly Klimek
5W–3L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Susan Lin
4W–1L 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.