WI Adult 18&O 3.5W GML Brookfield Elite Harmelink
2024 WI Adult 18 & Over · WI Adult 18 & Over 3.5 (Eve) Women
12 players · average NTRP 3.50 / WISCONSIN
Schedule7 played
i
Flight standings15 teams · WI Adult 18 & Over 3.5 (Eve) Women
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1WI Adult 18&O 3.5W GML Mequon Elite Godden | 9 | 0 | 19 | 233 |
| 2WI Adult 18&O 3.5W GML River Glen Elite Langerman | 8 | 1 | 27 | 313 |
| 3WI Adult 18&O 3.5W GML PVCT Lambo | 7 | 2 | 37 | 323 |
| 4WI Adult 18&O 3.5W GML Lake Country WAC Deppisch | 5 | 2 | 31 | 277 |
| 5WI Adult 18&O 3.5W GML FLAC Giroux | 5 | 2 | 33 | 270 |
| 6WI Adult 18&O 3.5W GML Lake Geneva Winchell | 4 | 2 | 26 | 239 |
| 7WI Adult 18&O 3.5W GML Brookfield Elite Moskow | 4 | 5 | 49 | 378 |
| 8WI Adult 18&O 3.5W GML Brookfield East HS Pletcher | 4 | 5 | 55 | 398 |
| 9WI Adult 18&O 3.5W GML Brookfield Elite Harmelink | 3 | 4 | 43 | 307 |
| 10WI Adult 18&O 3.5W GML Menomonee Falls HS Kotar | 3 | 4 | 45 | 341 |
| 11WI Adult 18&O 3.5W GML Oconomowoc HS Westlind | 3 | 4 | 48 | 350 |
| 12WI Adult 18&O 3.5W GML North Shore Elite Nelsen | 2 | 7 | 61 | 438 |
| 13WI Adult 18&O 3.5W GML Princeton Campbell | 1 | 6 | 50 | 337 |
| 14WI Adult 18&O 3.5W GML Nicolet HS Davis | 1 | 8 | 62 | 443 |
| 15WI Adult 18&O 3.5W GML Mequon Elite Buell | 1 | 8 | 83 | 510 |
Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.
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 3.33 estimated across 9 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Megan Hambrook + Kristin Marlier | 15–6 | 56% games | +7.4% vs expected |
| Anne Daniels + Carol Zembinski | 6–4 | 54% games | +4.1% vs expected |
| Megan Hambrook + Mindy Harmelink | 9–6 | 56% games | +2.3% vs expected |
| Johanna Gross + Carol Zembinski | 1–4 | 48% games | −1.6% vs expected |
| Carol Mooren + Mindy Harmelink | 4–9 | 45% games | −6.1% vs expected |
| Amy Diestelhorst + Johanna Gross | 3–0 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Megan Hambrook + Anne Daniels | 3–0 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Carla Allsop + Mindy Harmelink | 0–3 | 3 matches | not enough data |
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.
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.