Teams

KY/LOU/TAYLOR/BAILEY

2025 USTA 2.5 Women 2nd Session 18 and Over LOUISVILLE · 2.5 Women Second Session 18 and Over

14 players · average NTRP 2.75 / KENTUCKY

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 →
Schedule2 played
2025-05-10vs KY/LOU/IVES/WHITMERWon 21
W#1 DoublesLexy Perry / Deena Neimat vs Amanda Ives / Meredith Smith6-3, 6-2
L#1 SinglesEmily Rives vs Laura Ochsner2-6, 0-6
W#2 DoublesKatie Taylor / Holly Gravely vs Krista Cooper / Simran Brar7-6, 6-3
2025-04-06vs KY/LOU/ZINSERWon 21
W#1 DoublesKate Bailey / Deena Neimat vs Tracey Woock / Rachel Miranda6-1, 6-3
L#1 SinglesHolly Gravely vs Kelly Hampton3-6, 0-6
W#2 DoublesMollie Shutt / Allison Taylor vs Holly Barger / Whitney Kramer6-3, 6-1
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 2.5 Women Second Session 18 and Over 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 2.43 estimated across 8 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.

Allison Taylor
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.63
Emily Rives
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
2.58
Deena Neimat
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.50
Kelsey Norcia
published
2.49
Kristina Quigley
published
2.42
Lexy Perry
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.35
Holly Gravely
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.31
Molly Blacketer
published
Caroline Matthews
published 2.5
2.17
Brittany Musick
published 2.5
Jessica Mattingly
published
Katherine Effinger
published
Mollie Shutt
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Tiffany Burke
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.

Emily Rives + Kelsey Norcia6352% games−1.5% vs expected
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.

3
Allison Taylor
7W–3L career · type A · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Emily Rives
16W–11L career · 1 line in 2025
18%82%<1%
2.63
3
Deena Neimat
11W–11L career · 2 lines in 2025
28%72%<1%
2.58
Kelsey Norcia
15W–11L career · no lines in 2025
50%50%<1%
2.50
Kristina Quigley
14W–11L career · no lines in 2025
0%53%47%
2.49
Lexy Perry
8W–5L career · 1 line in 2025
71%29%<1%
2.42
Holly Gravely
8W–12L career · 2 lines in 2025
86%14%<1%
2.35
Molly Blacketer
4W–6L career · no lines in 2025
92%8%<1%
2.31
2.5
Caroline Matthews
1W–2L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
2.5
Brittany Musick
5W–6L career · type S · no lines in 2025
0%99%1%
2.17
Jessica Mattingly
3W–1L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Katherine Effinger
7W–2L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Mollie Shutt
8W–2L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Tiffany Burke
1W–3L career · no 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.