Teams

Black- Country Club of Oxford

2025 Singles League 18&Over-NC · Women 3.5

7 players · average NTRP 3.50 / MISSISSIPPI

No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2025-12-07vs Worsham- NC- OxfordSplit 11
L#1 SinglesCelia Wood vs Amanda Overton0-6, 2-5
W#2 SinglesMargaret Baker vs Aimee Goforth6-4, 2-6, 1-0
2025-11-17vs Worsham- NC- OxfordWon 21
L#1 SinglesKathryn Lance vs Heather McDonald0-6, 1-6
W#2 SinglesHallie Beasley vs LaMonda Stanford7-5, 6-3
W#3 SinglesMargaret Baker vs Emily Glahn6-3, 6-4
2025-11-13vs Martin 3.5 SinglesWon 21
W#1 SinglesHallie Beasley vs Michie Cotton6-2, 7-6
W#2 SinglesMurre Foster vs Penny Martin6-1, 6-0
L#3 SinglesCelia Wood vs Mandy Alford6-7, 1-5
2025-11-02vs Martin 3.5 SinglesLost 12
L#1 SinglesMurre Foster vs Michie Cotton6-4, 4-6, 0-1
L#2 SinglesBlakeney Black vs Mandy Alford4-6, 5-7
W#3 SinglesCelia Wood vs Penny Martin5-7, 6-0, 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 Women 3.5 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 3.27 estimated across 6 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.

3.65
Murre Foster
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published
3.38
Hallie Beasley
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published 3.5
3.35
Campbell Smith
published 3.5
3.19
Blakeney Black
usually #2 Singles 100% · published 3.5
3.10
Celia Wood
usually #3 Singles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 3.5
2.94
Margaret Baker
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #3 Singles 50% · published
Kathryn Lance
usually #1 Singles 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.

Celia Wood + Blakeney Black4160% games+6.4% vs expected
Blakeney Black + Hallie Beasley1441% games+3.2% vs expected
Celia Wood + Margaret Baker4254% games−2.3% vs expected
Margaret Baker + Hallie Beasley213 matchesnot enough data
Blakeney Black + Campbell Smith213 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.

Murre Foster
15W–18L career · 2 lines in 2025
12%88%<1%
3.65
3.5
Hallie Beasley
30W–11L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%82%18%
3.38
3.5
Campbell Smith
15W–12L career · no lines in 2025
<1%88%12%
3.35
3.5
Blakeney Black
18W–19L career · 1 line in 2025
8%92%1%
3.19
3.5
Celia Wood
27W–42L career · 3 lines in 2025
23%77%<1%
3.10
Margaret Baker
31W–20L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%67%33%
2.94
Kathryn Lance
12W–19L career · 1 line 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.