H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Anne Hobbs vs Kate Latham H2H: 3-1
Anne Hobbs holds a 3–1 lead over Kate Latham in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Anne Hobbs leads 2–0 on carpet, while they are tied 1–1 on grass. Most recently, Anne Hobbs won the 1982 Manchester final 6-2 6-0.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 6, 1982* | Manchester | WTA 250 | F | Grass | Anne Hobbs | 6-2 6-0 | Kate Latham | Match data |
| Oct 1, 1981* | Minneapolis | WTA 250 | R32 | Carpet | Anne Hobbs | 6-3 6-3 | Kate Latham | Match data |
| Jun 19, 1980* | Eastbourne | WTA 250 | R32 | Grass | Kate Latham | 7-6 2-6 7-5 | Anne Hobbs | Match data |
| Feb 20, 1980* | Detroit | WTA 250 | R64 | Carpet | Anne Hobbs | 4-6 6-3 6-4 | Kate Latham | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anne Hobbs | #583 | #35 | 18 | 1,842 | 174 | 164 | 51.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 8 |
| Kate Latham | — | — | — | 1,866 | 198 | 202 | 49.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
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 | Anne Hobbs | Kate Latham | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 1976 | 7–7 | 50.0% | — | 1,550 | 0 | 0 | 1969 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1977 | 6–6 | 50.0% | — | 1,576 | 0 | 2 | 1970 | 1–3 | 25.0% | — | 1,476 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1978 | 26–14 | 65.0% | — | 1,729 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1979 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,756 | 0 | 3 | 1972 | 3–3 | 50.0% | — | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1980 | 26–18 | 59.1% | — | 1,755 | 0 | 5 | 1973 | 6–7 | 46.2% | — | 1,587 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1981 | 22–18 | 55.0% | — | 1,825 | 0 | 5 | 1974 | 40–16 | 71.4% | — | 1,844 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 1982 | 8–13 | 38.1% | — | 1,727 | 0 | 6 | 1975 | 15–20 | 42.9% | — | 1,690 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 1983 | 18–19 | 48.6% | — | 1,752 | 0 | 7 | 1976 | 4–2 | 66.7% | — | 1,680 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 1984 | 14–14 | 50.0% | #59 | 1,736 | 0 | 7 | 1977 | 15–12 | 55.6% | — | 1,755 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 1985 | 13–12 | 52.0% | #63 | 1,777 | 0 | 8 | 1978 | 13–17 | 43.3% | — | 1,661 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 1986 | 6–14 | 30.0% | #99 | 1,679 | 0 | 8 | 1979 | 21–23 | 47.7% | — | 1,848 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 1987 | 14–11 | 56.0% | #42 | 1,714 | 0 | 8 | 1980 | 23–22 | 51.1% | — | 1,750 | 0 | 4 |
| 28 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1981 | 21–20 | 51.2% | — | 1,774 | 0 | 5 |
| 29 | 1989 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #231 | 1,609 | 0 | 8 | 1982 | 24–28 | 46.2% | — | 1,688 | 0 | 5 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1983 | 9–16 | 36.0% | — | 1,625 | 0 | 6 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1984 | 0–11 | 0.0% | — | 1,494 | 0 | 6 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1985 | 3–1 | 75.0% | — | 1,528 | 0 | 6 |