Teams

WI Adult 18&O 2.5W MALT Carlson

2026 WI Adult 18 & Over · WI Adult 18 & Over 2.5 Women

5 players · average NTRP 2.50 / WISCONSIN

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2026-07-20vs WI Adult 18&O 2.5W MALT HuSplit 11
W#1 DoublesJami Thornton / Jen Dillon vs Cynthia van Buskirk / Elizabeth Neary6-0, 6-3
L#2 DoublesMaggie Brickerman / Erin Malloy vs Shannon Cannon / Cynthia Heffling3-6, 6-3, 0-1
2026-07-13vs WI Adult 18&O 2.5W MALT KobelskiLost 01
L#1 SinglesMaggie Brickerman vs Katie Satinsky1-6, 1-6
2026-06-30vs WI Adult 18&O 2.5W MALT HuLost 01
L#1 DoublesSarah Lundquist / Jami Thornton vs Joanne Thomson / Mei Hu6-2, 4-6, 0-1
2026-06-25vs WI Adult 18&O 2.5W MALT HuSplit 11
L#1 DoublesMaggie Brickerman / Jen Dillon vs Mei Hu / Jung Sung Park0-6, 0-6
W#2 DoublesJennifer Carlson / Jami Thornton vs Joanne Thomson / Elizabeth Neary6-4, 7-6
2026-06-22vs WI Adult 18&O 2.5W MALT KobelskiWon 20
W#1 DoublesJami Thornton / Sarah Lundquist vs Karen Kobelski / Haley Smith3-6, 6-4, 1-0
W#2 DoublesAyelen Bravo / Maggie Brickerman vs Diane Puccetti / Kimberly Herlitzka6-2, 6-3
2026-06-01vs WI Adult 18&O 2.5W MALT KobelskiWon 21
W#1 DoublesJennifer Carlson / Sarah Lundquist vs Alison Carr / Haley Smith7-5, 6-2
L#1 SinglesJen Dillon vs Melissa Siewert4-6, 2-6
W#2 DoublesAyelen Bravo / Erin Malloy vs Diane Puccetti / Kimberly Herlitzka6-0, 6-2
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 standings3 teams · WI Adult 18 & Over 2.5 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1WI Adult 18&O 2.5W MALT Hu5112616135
2WI Adult 18&O 2.5W MALT Kobelski2481022158
3WI Adult 18&O 2.5W MALT Carlson2471123160

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 2.27 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.

2.42
Jami Thornton
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 2.5
2.37
Erin Malloy
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
2.33
Sarah Lundquist
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.14
Jen Dillon
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · published
2.09
Maggie Brickerman
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 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.

Jami Thornton + Sarah Lundquist5254% gamesnot enough data
Maggie Brickerman + Sarah Lundquist044 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.

2.5
Jami Thornton
9W–5L career · 4 lines in 2026
0%72%28%
2.42
2.5
Erin Malloy
6W–7L career · 2 lines in 2026
0%84%16%
2.37
Sarah Lundquist
9W–8L career · 3 lines in 2026
0%90%10%
2.33
Jen Dillon
7W–9L career · 3 lines in 2026
0%>99%<1%
2.14
Maggie Brickerman
4W–18L career · 4 lines in 2026
0%>99%<1%
2.09

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.