Teams

WI Tri Omega M Doubles MALT Kim

2024 WI Tri-Level · WI Omega Doubles Men

9 players · average NTRP 4.25 / WISCONSIN

View scouting list →
Schedule9 played
2024-04-04vs WI Tri Omega M Doubles MALT IsenseeSplit 11
L#2 DoublesHarrison Moon / Seongho Choi vs Elliott Appel / Marques Degrandis6-7, 3-6
W#3 DoublesKevin Kim / Jiho Kim vs J Busch / Byron Crites6-0, 6-4
2024-03-19vs WI Tri Omega M Doubles MALT DundasSplit 11
W#2 DoublesJohn Rice / Sam Yurak vs Michael Cerminaro / Noah Garber6-0, 6-2
L#3 DoublesJiho Kim / Woo J Kim vs John Cao / Jose Nunes6-4, 5-7, 0-1
W#2 DoublesHarrison Moon / Seongho Choi vs Carl Sorge / Seth Taapken7-5, 6-3
W#3 DoublesKevin Kim / Woo J Kim vs Miguel Garcia-Gosalvez / Michael Becker3-6, 6-4, 1-0
W#1 DoublesJohn Rice / Sam Yurak vs Nathan Wood / Robbie Spiegler6-2, 6-2
W#2 DoublesSeongho Choi / Harrison Moon vs Manas Vemuri / Krish M6-1, 6-2
W#3 DoublesKevin Kim / Jiho Kim vs Timur Mavlyutov / Jeremy Sager6-3, 4-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesHarrison Moon / Seongho Choi vs Narman Antony Peter / Matthew McGrady6-1, 6-3
W#3 DoublesJiho Kim / Woo J Kim vs Sameer Mathur / John Gritt6-2, 6-3
L#1 DoublesYingyan Wang / Sam Yurak vs Jed von Heimburg / Tony Mirasola2-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesSeongho Choi / John Rice vs Derek Hubbard / Alexander Strunce2-6, 6-3, 1-0
L#3 DoublesKevin Kim / Woo J Kim vs Kyle Cunningham / Kevin McAllister1-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesDaichi Hikimoto / Sam Yurak vs Jonathan Sandoval / Krishna Boregowda6-1, 6-0
W#3 DoublesKevin Kim / Jiho Kim vs Vamshi Belde / Jack Brody7-6, 7-5
2024-01-11vs WI Tri Omega M Doubles MALT MiuraSplit 11
W#2 DoublesHarrison Moon / John Rice vs Asa Miura / Benjamin Bachmann6-1, 6-3
L#3 DoublesJiho Kim / Woo J Kim vs Adam Wise / Edd Hellmer4-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesSam Yurak / John Rice vs Jason Knutson / Ryan Disch6-2, 4-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesWoo J Kim / Kevin Kim vs Mark Eriksson / Matthew Lister2-6, 7-5, 0-1
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 standings10 teams · WI Omega Doubles Men
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1WI Tri Omega M Doubles MALT Hubbard9026111180
2WI Tri Omega M Doubles MALT Whiteis72161124221
3WI Tri Omega M Doubles MALT Kim72171025222
4WI Tri Omega M Doubles MALT Boregowda54121531227
5WI Tri Omega M Doubles MALT Antony Peter54141332262
6WI Tri Omega M Doubles MALT Dundas45131433241
7WI Tri Omega M Doubles MALT Isensee36131433242
8WI Tri Omega M Doubles MALT Knutson36111637270
9WI Tri Omega M Doubles MALT Miura1891837256
10WI Tri Omega M Doubles MALT Mavlyutov1842349311

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 3.87 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.

4.16
Daichi Hikimoto
usually #1 Doubles 56%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
4.12
Sam Yurak
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published
3.87
Harrison Moon
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.86
Marius Dornhagen Schradermeier
usually #1 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published
3.34
Woo J Kim
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Jiho Kim
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
John Rice
published
Seongho Choi
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Yingyan Wang
usually #1 Doubles 89%, also #2 Doubles 11% · 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.

Sam Yurak + Daichi Hikimoto4456% games+8.7% vs expected
Jiho Kim + Woo J Kim7454% games+5.7% vs expected
Harrison Moon + Seongho Choi14859% games+1.5% vs expected
Seongho Choi + Woo J Kim8363% gamesnot enough data
Marius Dornhagen Schradermeier + Daichi Hikimoto2548% gamesnot enough data
Yingyan Wang + Daichi Hikimoto3247% gamesnot enough data
Harrison Moon + Woo J Kim224 matchesnot enough data
Seongho Choi + Jiho Kim224 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.

4.5
Daichi Hikimoto
40W–37L career · 9 lines in 2024
10%89%<1%
4.16
Sam Yurak
72W–41L career · 5 lines in 2024
<1%19%81%
4.12
4
Harrison Moon
93W–60L career · 5 lines in 2024
<1%84%16%
3.87
Marius Dornhagen Schradermeier
23W–38L career · 10 lines in 2024
<1%86%13%
3.86
Woo J Kim
60W–45L career · 6 lines in 2024
<1%88%12%
3.34
Jiho Kim
39W–21L career · 6 lines in 2024
not enough data
John Rice
4W–2L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
Seongho Choi
61W–32L career · 5 lines in 2024
not enough data
Yingyan Wang
18W–13L career · 9 lines in 2024
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.