H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Anne Smith vs Kate Latham H2H: 3-0
Anne Smith holds a 3–0 lead over Kate Latham in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Anne Smith leads 2–0 on carpet and 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Anne Smith won the 1981 Seattle third round 5-7 6-2 6-1.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 26, 1981* | Seattle | WTA 250 | R32 | Carpet | Anne Smith | 5-7 6-2 6-1 | Kate Latham | Match data |
| May 29, 1980* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R64 | Clay | Anne Smith | 2-6 6-2 6-1 | Kate Latham | Match data |
| Mar 9, 1978* | Dallas | WTA 250 | R32 | Carpet | Anne Smith | 6-1 6-2 | 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 Smith | — | — | — | 2,050 | 221 | 173 | 56.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| 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 Smith | Kate Latham | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1969 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1977 | 8–3 | 72.7% | — | 1,634 | 0 | 1 | 1970 | 1–3 | 25.0% | — | 1,476 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1978 | 14–7 | 66.7% | — | 1,784 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1979 | 28–28 | 50.0% | — | 1,847 | 0 | 2 | 1972 | 3–3 | 50.0% | — | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1980 | 21–21 | 50.0% | — | 1,866 | 0 | 2 | 1973 | 6–7 | 46.2% | — | 1,587 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1981 | 36–25 | 59.0% | — | 1,934 | 0 | 2 | 1974 | 40–16 | 71.4% | — | 1,844 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 1982 | 27–19 | 58.7% | — | 1,899 | 0 | 2 | 1975 | 15–20 | 42.9% | — | 1,690 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 1983 | 11–9 | 55.0% | — | 1,897 | 0 | 2 | 1976 | 4–2 | 66.7% | — | 1,680 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 1984 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,873 | 0 | 2 | 1977 | 15–12 | 55.6% | — | 1,755 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 1985 | 10–4 | 71.4% | — | 1,899 | 0 | 3 | 1978 | 13–17 | 43.3% | — | 1,661 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 1986 | 8–13 | 38.1% | — | 1,701 | 0 | 3 | 1979 | 21–23 | 47.7% | — | 1,848 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 1987 | 15–9 | 62.5% | — | 1,779 | 0 | 3 | 1980 | 23–22 | 51.1% | — | 1,750 | 0 | 4 |
| 28 | 1988 | 8–8 | 50.0% | — | 1,773 | 0 | 3 | 1981 | 21–20 | 51.2% | — | 1,774 | 0 | 5 |
| 29 | 1989 | 10–6 | 62.5% | — | 1,848 | 0 | 3 | 1982 | 24–28 | 46.2% | — | 1,688 | 0 | 5 |
| 30 | 1990 | 16–14 | 53.3% | — | 1,827 | 0 | 3 | 1983 | 9–16 | 36.0% | — | 1,625 | 0 | 6 |
| 31 | 1991 | 8–5 | 61.5% | — | 1,820 | 0 | 3 | 1984 | 0–11 | 0.0% | — | 1,494 | 0 | 6 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1985 | 3–1 | 75.0% | — | 1,528 | 0 | 6 |