Teams

WI Tri-Level Low Men NEL FCRC Larson

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

6 players · average NTRP 4.00 / WISCONSIN

View scouting list →
Schedule12 played
2026-05-23Won 10
W#1 DoublesBrian Larson / Jeremy Schmidt vs Ethan Hoag / Lorenzo Verniani6-1, 6-2
W#1 DoublesSkyler Colegrove / Jeremy Schmidt vs Ethan Hoag / Ivan Pulido6-1, 6-0
2026-05-16Won 10
W#1 DoublesBrian Larson / Jeremy Schmidt vs Jacques Verbauwhede / Lorenzo Verniani6-3, 6-3
2026-05-16Won 10
W#1 DoublesSkyler Colegrove / David Penniston vs Jacques Verbauwhede / Andrew Terry6-3, 7-6
W#1 DoublesBrian Larson / Jeremy Schmidt vs Pramod Shinde / Kevin Struck6-4, 6-0
W#1 DoublesDavid Penniston / Skyler Colegrove vs Pramod Shinde / Kevin Struck7-5, 6-3
2026-04-26Won 10
W#1 DoublesBrian Larson / Jeremy Schmidt vs Tom Leggett / Steve Petrinski2-6, 6-2, 1-0
2026-04-26Won 10
W#1 DoublesDavid Risgaard / Skyler Colegrove vs Chad Patch / Steve Petrinski6-4, 6-1
W#1 DoublesBrian Larson / Jeremy Schmidt vs Chin-Yi Lin / Russell Salzer6-0, 6-0
W#1 DoublesBrian Larson / David Penniston vs Chin-Yi Lin / Russell Salzer6-1, 6-1
2026-03-22Won 10
W#1 DoublesDavid Penniston / Skyler Colegrove vs Steve Petrinski / Tom Leggett6-4, 6-1
2026-03-22Won 10
W#1 DoublesBrian Larson / Jeremy Schmidt vs Steve Petrinski / Chad Patch6-2, 6-2
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 standings4 teams · WI Tri-Level Low Doubles Men
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1WI Tri-Level Low Men NEL FCRC Larson12029720238
2WI Tri-Level Low Men NEL Western Terry75181838318
3WI Tri-Level Low Men NEL GBTC Palasota39152144321
4WI Tri-Level Low Men NEL Ogden Lin210102652352

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 3.72 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.

3.92
David Risgaard
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.83
David Penniston
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.80
Jeremy Schmidt
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Brian Larson
published 4
3.70
Skyler Colegrove
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.33
Richard Lanzetta
usually #2 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.

David Penniston + Skyler Colegrove6257% games+0.6% vs expected
Skyler Colegrove + Richard Lanzetta5449% gamesnot 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
David Risgaard
7W–3L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%71%28%
3.92
4
David Penniston
18W–4L career · 4 lines in 2026
1%87%12%
3.83
Jeremy Schmidt
17W–7L career · 7 lines in 2026
2%91%7%
3.80
4
Brian Larson
no matches on record · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Skyler Colegrove
22W–16L career · 5 lines in 2026
8%90%1%
3.70
Richard Lanzetta
20W–18L career · 12 lines in 2026
88%12%<1%
3.33

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.