H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Angelica Gavaldon vs Jo Durie H2H: 1-0
Angelica Gavaldon holds a 1–0 lead over Jo Durie in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Angelica Gavaldon leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Angelica Gavaldon won the 1992 Indian Wells second round 6-2 6-7 7-5.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
MEX
Age 52
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
GBR
Age 65
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 26, 1992* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Angelica Gavaldon | 6-2 6-7 7-5 | Jo Durie | Match data |
* Estimated match date where the exact historical date is unavailable.
Career Comparison
| Player | Current | Peak | Pts | Elo | W | L | Win % | GS | 1000 | Finals | 500 | 250 | Titles |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Angelica Gavaldon | #434 | #34 | 237 | 1,733 | 72 | 109 | 39.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jo Durie | #302 | #5 | 31 | 2,099 | 314 | 264 | 54.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 8 | 9 |
Career Progression by Age
Seasons are aligned by the age each player spent most of that calendar year. GS and Titles are cumulative career totals through that season.
| Age | Angelica Gavaldon | Jo Durie | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | 1988 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #264 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | 1975 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | 1989 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #191 | 1,500 | 0 | 0 | 1976 | 5–6 | 45.5% | — | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 1990 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #51 | 1,601 | 0 | 0 | 1977 | 11–7 | 61.1% | — | 1,601 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1991 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #242 | 1,556 | 0 | 0 | 1978 | 18–10 | 64.3% | — | 1,618 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | 1992 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #142 | 1,535 | 0 | 0 | 1979 | 15–8 | 65.2% | — | 1,713 | 0 | 3 |
| 19 | 1993 | 19–20 | 48.7% | #64 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 | 1980 | 21–14 | 60.0% | — | 1,734 | 0 | 4 |
| 20 | 1994 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #119 | 1,601 | 0 | 0 | 1981 | 30–14 | 68.2% | — | 1,860 | 0 | 7 |
| 21 | 1995 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #36 | 1,676 | 0 | 0 | 1982 | 25–20 | 55.6% | — | 1,841 | 0 | 7 |
| 22 | 1996 | 2–10 | 16.7% | #219 | 1,586 | 0 | 0 | 1983 | 47–18 | 72.3% | — | 2,093 | 0 | 9 |
| 23 | 1997 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #107 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 | 1984 | 16–15 | 51.6% | #24 | 1,889 | 0 | 9 |
| 24 | 1998 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #697 | 1,517 | 0 | 0 | 1985 | 17–19 | 47.2% | #26 | 1,799 | 0 | 9 |
| 25 | 1999 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #379 | 1,510 | 0 | 0 | 1986 | 24–17 | 58.5% | #24 | 1,842 | 0 | 9 |
| 26 | 2000 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #261 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 | 1987 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #73 | 1,741 | 0 | 9 |
| 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1988 | 19–19 | 50.0% | #60 | 1,704 | 0 | 9 |
| 28 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1989 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #117 | 1,621 | 0 | 9 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1990 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #64 | 1,674 | 0 | 9 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1991 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #62 | 1,717 | 0 | 9 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1992 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #59 | 1,693 | 0 | 9 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1993 | 4–12 | 25.0% | #192 | 1,562 | 0 | 9 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1994 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #348 | 1,554 | 0 | 9 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #292 | 1,547 | 0 | 9 |