Teams

BASALT BLACK

2024 CTA TWILIGHT - MOUNTAINS · WOMEN 2.5 - TWILIGHT - MOUNTAINS

8 players · average NTRP 2.50 / COLORADO

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 →
Schedule5 played
2024-09-30vs GSCC BLUELost 01
L#1 DoublesJessie Hjorth / Lauren Mirich vs Daniele Burns / Ashley Eberly7-6, 2-6, 0-1
2024-09-23vs GSCC REDLost 01
L#2 DoublesAimee Mossa / Audrey Allen vs Margo Stapleton / Jon Nell Reeds0-6, 0-6
2024-09-09vs GSCC BLUESplit 11
L#1 DoublesLauren Mirich / Jessie Hjorth vs Erin Evers / Brittany Meason6-3, 2-6, 0-1
W#1 SinglesNancy Garrigus vs Ashley Eberly6-4, 6-2
2024-08-26vs GSCC REDWon 20
W#1 DoublesNancy Garrigus / Lauren Mirich vs Anne Swanson / Margo Stapleton3-6, 6-1, 1-0
W#1 SinglesKatie Fitzgerald vs Kristin Davis6-0, 6-3
2024-08-12vs GSCC BLUEWon 30
W#1 DoublesNancy Garrigus / Jessie Hjorth vs Cindy Hester / Sheldon Emery6-4, 6-4
W#1 SinglesLauren Mirich vs Erin Evers6-4, 6-4
W#2 DoublesAudrey Allen / Aimee Mossa vs Noelle Elmore / Brittany Meason6-0, 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 WOMEN 2.5 - TWILIGHT - MOUNTAINS 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 2.45 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.

2.70
Katie Fitzgerald
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
2.63
Richlyn Pavcek
published
2.58
Lauren Mirich
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #1 Singles 25% · published
2.44
Nancy Garrigus
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · published
Aimee Mossa
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
2.24
Audrey Allen
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
2.11
Dena Albright
published 2.5
Jessie Hjorth
usually #1 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.

Nancy Garrigus + Lauren Mirich7259% games+12.9% vs expected
Lauren Mirich + Jessie Hjorth4649% games−0.6% vs expected
Richlyn Pavcek + Nancy Garrigus3249% gamesnot enough data
Dena Albright + Nancy Garrigus314 matchesnot enough data
Aimee Mossa + Audrey Allen314 matchesnot enough data
Dena Albright + Lauren Mirich123 matchesnot enough data
Dena Albright + Jessie Hjorth033 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.

Katie Fitzgerald
12W–4L career · 1 line in 2024
6%93%1%
2.70
Richlyn Pavcek
47W–60L career · no lines in 2024
16%84%<1%
2.63
Lauren Mirich
19W–15L career · 4 lines in 2024
0%28%72%
2.58
Nancy Garrigus
30W–24L career · 3 lines in 2024
0%68%32%
2.44
2.5
Aimee Mossa
4W–10L career · 2 lines in 2024
not enough data
2.5
Audrey Allen
8W–12L career · 2 lines in 2024
0%98%2%
2.24
2.5
Dena Albright
15W–31L career · no lines in 2024
0%>99%<1%
2.11
Jessie Hjorth
8W–16L career · 3 lines in 2024
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.