Teams

WH Kamerling SSL A18-3.0W

2025 WMI SSL USTA League Adult 18&Over Weekday Leagues · WMI SSL A18&O 3.0 W (8 player)

20 players · average NTRP 2.86 / WESTERN MICHIGAN

No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2025-05-16vs MVH Hildebrand SSL A18-3.0WLost 12
W#1 DoublesROSEANN BLAHNIK / Kimberly KIngsbury Curvelo vs Carol Bassett / Dawn Hildebrand6-1, 6-4
L#1 SinglesLissa Weaver vs Samantha Barkey4-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesAstrid Goldenbeld / Christine Douma vs Terri Miller / Kristi Turchan6-7, 4-5
2025-03-07vs MVH Hildebrand SSL A18-3.0WLost 05
L#1 DoublesConnie Kamerling / Torrey Lapine vs Janet McNamara / Ann Radke2-6, 7-6, 0-1
L#1 SinglesChristine Douma vs Samantha Barkey0-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesROSEANN BLAHNIK / Kelly Hooks vs Carol Bassett / Dawn Hildebrand6-7, 6-2, 0-1
L#2 SinglesJoan VanSickler vs Maddalena Pistillo0-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesERIN ERB / Sarah Rockhill vs Beth Rix / Kristi Turchan3-6, 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 standings6 teams · WMI SSL A18&O 3.0 W (8 player)
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1MVC Miller-Heys SSL A18-3.0W9038715277
2PTC Chandler SSL A18-3.0W63291634313
3MVH Hildebrand SSL A18-3.0W45232246402
4MVS McMahon SSL A18-3.0W#32151023212
5WH Kamerling SSL A18-3.0W3693672468
6PY Rhodes SSL A18-3.0W09113468464

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 2.64 estimated across 19 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.

3.00
Kimberly KIngsbury Curvelo
usually #1 Doubles 89%, also #2 Doubles 11% · published
2.99
Bethany Molitz
published 3
2.98
Torrey Lapine
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
2.89
ROSEANN BLAHNIK
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #1 Doubles 43% · published
2.85
Connie Kamerling
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.75
Margaret Cancro
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.73
Kelly Hooks
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #1 Singles 17% · published
2.65
Joan VanSickler
usually #2 Singles 100% · published
2.65
Kate Hamann
published
2.65
Anna Clement
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.63
ERIN ERB
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.58
Christine Douma
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 3
2.55
Laura Mrozinski
published
2.52
Astrid Goldenbeld
usually #2 Doubles 40%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published 3
2.42
Sarah Rockhill
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.40
Deirdre Harris
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
2.40
Pamela Hauer
published
2.39
NANCY KRAPF
published
2.17
Christie Schlegel
published 2.5
Lissa Weaver
usually #1 Singles 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.

Anna Clement + Margaret Cancro5161% games+9.0% vs expected
Connie Kamerling + Torrey Lapine7455% games+7.5% vs expected
Christine Douma + Margaret Cancro3256% games+5.9% vs expected
Connie Kamerling + ROSEANN BLAHNIK9356% games+3.4% vs expected
Kimberly KIngsbury Curvelo + ROSEANN BLAHNIK151450% games+2.9% vs expected
Pamela Hauer + Laura Mrozinski3545% games+0.4% vs expected
Astrid Goldenbeld + Laura Mrozinski2344% games+0.3% vs expected
NANCY KRAPF + Joan VanSickler4354% games+0.1% 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.

Kimberly KIngsbury Curvelo
48W–61L career · 9 lines in 2025
<1%50%50%
3.00
3
Bethany Molitz
9W–3L career · no lines in 2025
<1%53%47%
2.99
Torrey Lapine
33W–40L career · 6 lines in 2025
<1%57%43%
2.98
ROSEANN BLAHNIK
96W–75L career · 7 lines in 2025
<1%78%22%
2.89
3
Connie Kamerling
85W–102L career · 1 line in 2025
1%86%14%
2.85
Margaret Cancro
42W–74L career · 8 lines in 2025
3%93%4%
2.75
Kelly Hooks
9W–29L career · 5 lines in 2025
5%92%3%
2.73
Joan VanSickler
52W–82L career · 1 line in 2025
14%86%1%
2.65
Kate Hamann
10W–11L career · no lines in 2025
14%85%1%
2.65
3
Anna Clement
22W–33L career · 6 lines in 2025
15%85%1%
2.65
ERIN ERB
6W–12L career · 2 lines in 2025
18%81%<1%
2.63
3
Christine Douma
52W–95L career · 3 lines in 2025
28%71%<1%
2.58
Laura Mrozinski
21W–36L career · no lines in 2025
36%64%<1%
2.55
3
Astrid Goldenbeld
58W–106L career · 5 lines in 2025
45%55%<1%
2.52
Sarah Rockhill
0W–17L career · 1 line in 2025
72%28%<1%
2.42
2.5
Deirdre Harris
0W–7L career · 2 lines in 2025
0%75%25%
2.40
Pamela Hauer
26W–61L career · no lines in 2025
76%24%<1%
2.40
NANCY KRAPF
15W–28L career · no lines in 2025
78%22%<1%
2.39
2.5
Christie Schlegel
14W–49L career · no lines in 2025
0%99%1%
2.17
Lissa Weaver
0W–1L career · 1 line in 2025
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.