Teams

WI Combo 8.5M MALT Akyuz

2026 WI Combo · WI Combo 8.5 Men

9 players · average NTRP 4.25 / WISCONSIN

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2026-08-18vs WI Combo 8.5M MALT HeiligerWon 30
W#1 DoublesIlia Mikhalenkl / Jonathan Figueira vs John Braxler / Marques Degrandis7-5, 7-6
W#2 DoublesJordan Mauk / Kevin Grant vs Dan Langer / Bruce Bartelt6-2, 6-4
W#3 DoublesEnes Akyuz / Andrew Liu vs Joseph Hahn / Dennis Sieren6-2, 6-1
2026-08-11vs WI Combo 8.5M MALT DundasLost 02
L#1 DoublesEnes Akyuz / Jonathan Figueira vs Sasha Chackalackal / Ben Wang1-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesMaanas Sanjay / Eric Czarnecki vs Alex Dundas / Ryan Denu6-7, 2-6
2026-08-04vs WI Combo 8.5M MALT DahlLost 12
L#1 DoublesAugust LePique / John Montognese-Bergamini vs Noah Wankerl / Joshua Howell6-4, 4-6, 0-1
W#2 DoublesMaanas Sanjay / Xiaotong Wang vs Kyle Halweg / Bernard Vocht III6-4, 6-7, 1-0
L#3 DoublesAndrew Liu / Eric Czarnecki vs Dennis Rhodes / David Jumes2-6, 6-3, 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 standings for WI Combo 8.5 Men have not been collected yet. Where we have them we show every team in the flight ranked, with this team highlighted. The crawler is still filling in older seasons and flights.

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 4.05 estimated across 8 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.

4.49
August LePique
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4.5
4.40
Jonathan Figueira
usually #1 Doubles 80%, also #3 Doubles 20% · published
4.29
Jordan Mauk
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
4.02
Maanas Sanjay
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.96
Enes Akyuz
usually #3 Doubles 80%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published
3.88
Eric Czarnecki
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.78
Ben Garstecki
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.58
John Montognese-Bergamini
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
Xiaotong Wang
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.

Jonathan Figueira + August LePique303 matchesnot enough data
August LePique + Enes Akyuz213 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
August LePique
37W–27L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%54%46%
4.49
Jonathan Figueira
89W–54L career · 5 lines in 2026
<1%76%24%
4.40
Jordan Mauk
50W–46L career · 1 line in 2026
2%91%7%
4.29
Maanas Sanjay
1W–7L career · 2 lines in 2026
45%55%<1%
4.02
Enes Akyuz
103W–59L career · 5 lines in 2026
<1%62%38%
3.96
Eric Czarnecki
62W–34L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%79%20%
3.88
4
Ben Garstecki
13W–16L career · 1 line in 2026
2%92%6%
3.78
John Montognese-Bergamini
80W–61L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%28%72%
3.58
Xiaotong Wang
14W–6L 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.