Teams

WI Combo 7.5W GML McKinley Park Capati

2026 WI Combo · WI Combo 7.5 Women

9 players · average NTRP 3.50 / WISCONSIN

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
L#1 DoublesNina Capati / Ellen Kelderman vs Kaitlin Wille / Kristin Marlier3-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesLauren Hansen / Sally Haldorson vs Laurie Pasternak / Mary Whitfield3-6, 0-6
L#3 DoublesKay Bokowy / Emily Mcelhaney vs Amelia Hagopian / Patricia Wille3-6, 7-5, 1-0
L#1 DoublesEllen Kelderman / Jaclyn Sturman vs Christi Witt / Joyce Coury6-7, 4-6
L#2 DoublesCana Comer / Lauren Hansen vs Tina Kadrich / Kathleen Dubiel1-6, 2-6
W#3 DoublesNina Capati / Sally Haldorson vs Gina Larkin / Kristen Lambrecht6-3, 6-3
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 7.5 Women 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 3.30 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.

3.45
Ellen Kelderman
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.44
Emily Mcelhaney
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.42
Nina Capati
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.34
Jaclyn Sturman
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.32
Sally Haldorson
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.25
Dina Davis
published
3.24
Cary Fulford
published 3.5
3.24
Cana Comer
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.96
Kay Bokowy
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
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.

Dina Davis + Cana Comer10356% games+7.5% vs expected
Sally Haldorson + Cana Comer6159% games+6.9% vs expected
Nina Capati + Ellen Kelderman5652% games+3.9% vs expected
Kay Bokowy + Sally Haldorson141449% games+3.6% vs expected
Ellen Kelderman + Cana Comer4353% games+0.7% vs expected
Nina Capati + Sally Haldorson191355% games−1.6% vs expected
Sally Haldorson + Ellen Kelderman3255% games−1.8% vs expected
Jaclyn Sturman + Cary Fulford314 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.

3.5
Ellen Kelderman
56W–50L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%63%37%
3.45
Emily Mcelhaney
6W–5L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%66%34%
3.44
3.5
Nina Capati
47W–45L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%71%29%
3.42
3.5
Jaclyn Sturman
42W–63L career · 1 line in 2026
1%86%13%
3.34
3.5
Sally Haldorson
96W–82L career · 2 lines in 2026
1%89%9%
3.32
Dina Davis
16W–15L career · no lines in 2026
4%93%4%
3.25
3.5
Cary Fulford
10W–18L career · no lines in 2026
4%93%3%
3.24
3.5
Cana Comer
41W–54L career · 1 line in 2026
5%92%3%
3.24
3.5
Kay Bokowy
43W–80L career · 1 line in 2026
60%40%<1%
2.96

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.