Teams

WI Combo 8.5M MALT Dahl

2026 WI Combo · WI Combo 8.5 Men

9 players · average NTRP 4.17 / WISCONSIN

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2026-08-11vs WI Combo 8.5M MALT HeiligerWon 30
W#1 DoublesKyle Halweg / Kendall Harrison vs John Braxler / Daniel Heiliger6-2, 6-3
W#2 DoublesNoah Wankerl / Dennis Rhodes vs Marques Degrandis / Dennis Sieren7-5, 6-2
W#3 DoublesLee Taylor / James Dahl vs Chenyan Gong / Hai Nguyen6-3, 6-4
2026-08-04vs WI Combo 8.5M MALT AkyuzWon 21
W#1 DoublesNoah Wankerl / Joshua Howell vs August LePique / John Montognese-Bergamini4-6, 6-4, 1-0
L#2 DoublesKyle Halweg / Bernard Vocht III vs Maanas Sanjay / Xiaotong Wang4-6, 7-6, 0-1
W#3 DoublesDennis Rhodes / David Jumes vs Andrew Liu / Eric Czarnecki2-6, 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 3.98 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.

4.31
Noah Wankerl
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
4.26
Kyle Halweg
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
4.16
Lee Taylor
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
4.09
David Jumes
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
3.98
Kendall Harrison
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.86
Joshua Howell
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.75
Dennis Rhodes
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.72
Bernard Vocht III
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.69
James Dahl
usually #3 Doubles 100% · 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.

Kendall Harrison + Kyle Halweg5358% games+3.0% vs expected
James Dahl + Bernard Vocht III11653% games+2.8% vs expected
Dennis Rhodes + David Jumes2341% gamesnot enough data
Kendall Harrison + Joshua Howell404 matchesnot enough data
Bernard Vocht III + Lee Taylor134 matchesnot enough data
Noah Wankerl + Lee Taylor314 matchesnot enough data
James Dahl + Kyle Halweg213 matchesnot enough data
James Dahl + Lee Taylor123 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.

Noah Wankerl
49W–19L career · 2 lines in 2026
1%90%9%
4.31
Kyle Halweg
31W–23L career · 2 lines in 2026
3%93%4%
4.26
Lee Taylor
45W–46L career · 3 lines in 2026
13%87%1%
4.16
4.5
David Jumes
16W–16L career · 1 line in 2026
26%74%<1%
4.09
Kendall Harrison
38W–17L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%56%44%
3.98
Joshua Howell
42W–15L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%83%16%
3.86
4
Dennis Rhodes
43W–30L career · 2 lines in 2026
4%93%4%
3.75
4
Bernard Vocht III
29W–14L career · 1 line in 2026
5%92%2%
3.72
James Dahl
48W–32L career · 1 line in 2026
9%89%1%
3.69

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.