Teams

WI Hi Tri M Doubles MALT Balakrishnan

2025 WI Tri-Level · WI Hi Tri Men Doubles

11 players · average NTRP 4.50 / WISCONSIN

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
W#2 DoublesJohn Rice / Carter Braxton vs Hiroshi Maeda / Lance Encell6-1, 6-1
2025-03-22vs WI Hi Tri M Doubles MALT YeeWon 10
W#2 DoublesCarter Braxton / Jordan Mauk vs David Abuaf / Kevin Li6-1, 7-5
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 standings6 teams · WI Hi Tri Men Doubles
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1WI Hi Tri M Doubles MALT Balakrishnan7321926248
2WI Hi Tri M Doubles MALT Cadigan64181225253
3WI Hi Tri M Doubles MALT Marquez64171334270
4WI Hi Tri M Doubles MALT von Heimburg46111940300
5WI Hi Tri M Doubles MALT Dundas46121841319
6WI Hi Tri M Doubles MALT Yee37111942305

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 4.09 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.

4.40
Carter Braxton
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.39
Jordan Raemisch
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
4.31
Noah Wankerl
usually #1 Doubles 95%, also #2 Doubles 5% · published
4.29
Jordan Mauk
usually #1 Doubles 54%, also #2 Doubles 46% · published
4.08
Benjamin Thiel
usually #1 Doubles 54%, also #2 Doubles 46% · published 4.5
4.04
Paul Isaac
usually #3 Doubles 56%, also #2 Doubles 44% · published
3.97
REMESH BALAKRISHNAN
usually #2 Doubles 71%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published
3.88
Joseph Mercurio
usually #3 Doubles 56%, also #2 Doubles 44% · published
3.44
Narman Antony Peter
usually #2 Doubles 63%, also #3 Doubles 38% · published
John Rice
published
Wesley Block
usually #1 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · 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.

Paul Isaac + Joseph Mercurio6455% games+7.5% vs expected
REMESH BALAKRISHNAN + Narman Antony Peter4350% games+6.4% vs expected
Jordan Raemisch + REMESH BALAKRISHNAN5157% games+4.8% vs expected
Jordan Raemisch + Noah Wankerl8061% gamesnot enough data
REMESH BALAKRISHNAN + Joseph Mercurio3255% gamesnot enough data
Jordan Raemisch + Wesley Block314 matchesnot enough data
Wesley Block + REMESH BALAKRISHNAN224 matchesnot enough data
Benjamin Thiel + Jordan Mauk314 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
Carter Braxton
17W–7L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%76%24%
4.40
Jordan Raemisch
64W–17L career · 14 lines in 2025
<1%79%21%
4.39
Noah Wankerl
49W–19L career · 20 lines in 2025
1%90%9%
4.31
Jordan Mauk
50W–46L career · 13 lines in 2025
2%91%7%
4.29
4.5
Benjamin Thiel
11W–13L career · 13 lines in 2025
29%71%<1%
4.08
Paul Isaac
35W–31L career · 9 lines in 2025
40%60%<1%
4.04
REMESH BALAKRISHNAN
89W–43L career · 7 lines in 2025
<1%59%41%
3.97
Joseph Mercurio
78W–53L career · 9 lines in 2025
<1%80%20%
3.88
Narman Antony Peter
30W–32L career · 8 lines in 2025
67%33%<1%
3.44
John Rice
23W–10L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Wesley Block
30W–20L career · 10 lines in 2025
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.