Teams

WI Adult 65 & over 8.0 MALT Crump

2022 WI Adult 65 & Over · WI Adult 65 & Over 8.0 Men

7 players · average NTRP 3.50 / WISCONSIN

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
W#1 DoublesPeter Crump / Tom Turner vs Maurice Russell / Rick O'Connor10-9
L#2 DoublesSid Ballweg / James Halberg vs Bob Liebman / C H2-10
L#1 DoublesPeter Crump / Sid Ballweg vs David Ellis / Bob Liebman4-10
L#2 DoublesKarl Nissler / Tom Turner vs George Kopacz / C H1-10
L#1 DoublesTom Turner / Sid Ballweg vs George Kopacz / David Ellis1-9
L#2 DoublesPeter Crump / C H vs James Siegel / Ronald Haidinger5-10
L#3 DoublesFrank Hilscher / James Halberg vs Paul S Hoff / Butch Loofboro3-10
L#1 DoublesPeter Crump / Tom Turner vs Paul S Hoff / Butch Loofboro9-10
L#2 DoublesSid Ballweg / James Halberg vs Maurice Russell / Rick O'Connor3-10
L#3 DoublesFrank Hilscher / Karl Nissler vs James Siegel / Ronald Haidinger5-10
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 Adult 65 & Over 8.0 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 3.51 estimated across 2 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.

3.74
Peter Crump
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
3.27
Frank Hilscher
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
James Halberg
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
Chuck Grant
published
Karl Nissler
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
Sid Ballweg
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Tom Turner
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · 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.

Peter Crump + Frank Hilscher1643% games+3.0% vs expected
Frank Hilscher + Tom Turner6653% gamesnot enough data
Karl Nissler + Frank Hilscher6254% gamesnot enough data
Karl Nissler + James Halberg4349% gamesnot enough data
Karl Nissler + Tom Turner5169% gamesnot enough data
Sid Ballweg + James Halberg1433% gamesnot enough data
Peter Crump + Tom Turner3247% gamesnot enough data
Sid Ballweg + Tom Turner044 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.

Peter Crump
43W–46L career · 4 lines in 2022
3%95%2%
3.74
3.5
Frank Hilscher
91W–63L career · 2 lines in 2022
2%94%4%
3.27
3.5
James Halberg
16W–21L career · 3 lines in 2022
not enough data
Chuck Grant
0W–3L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Karl Nissler
21W–15L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
Sid Ballweg
16W–24L career · 4 lines in 2022
not enough data
Tom Turner
31W–23L career · 4 lines in 2022
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.