H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Catherine Tanvier vs Kate Latham H2H: 1-1
Catherine Tanvier and Kate Latham are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Kate Latham leads 1–0 on carpet, while Catherine Tanvier leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Catherine Tanvier won the 1983 Amelia Island second round 6-4 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.
FRA
Age 61
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
Age 73
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 1983* | Amelia Island | WTA 250 | R64 | Clay | Catherine Tanvier | 6-4 6-0 | Kate Latham | Match data |
| Mar 12, 1982* | Dallas | WTA 250 | R16 | Carpet | Kate Latham | 1-6 7-6 6-2 | Catherine Tanvier | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Catherine Tanvier | #752 | #20 | 22 | 1,877 | 161 | 179 | 47.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 | Catherine Tanvier | Kate Latham | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1980 | 4–2 | 66.7% | — | 1,545 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1981 | 6–14 | 30.0% | — | 1,540 | 0 | 0 | 1969 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1982 | 23–19 | 54.8% | — | 1,791 | 0 | 0 | 1970 | 1–3 | 25.0% | — | 1,476 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1983 | 17–16 | 51.5% | — | 1,824 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1984 | 21–18 | 53.8% | #30 | 1,777 | 0 | 0 | 1972 | 3–3 | 50.0% | — | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1985 | 18–16 | 52.9% | #39 | 1,775 | 0 | 0 | 1973 | 6–7 | 46.2% | — | 1,587 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1986 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #37 | 1,825 | 0 | 0 | 1974 | 40–16 | 71.4% | — | 1,844 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 1987 | 10–19 | 34.5% | #96 | 1,618 | 0 | 0 | 1975 | 15–20 | 42.9% | — | 1,690 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 1988 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #77 | 1,602 | 0 | 0 | 1976 | 4–2 | 66.7% | — | 1,680 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 1989 | 12–12 | 50.0% | #65 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 | 1977 | 15–12 | 55.6% | — | 1,755 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 1990 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #99 | 1,658 | 0 | 0 | 1978 | 13–17 | 43.3% | — | 1,661 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 1991 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #104 | 1,603 | 0 | 0 | 1979 | 21–23 | 47.7% | — | 1,848 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 1992 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #105 | 1,614 | 0 | 0 | 1980 | 23–22 | 51.1% | — | 1,750 | 0 | 4 |
| 28 | 1993 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #543 | 1,578 | 0 | 0 | 1981 | 21–20 | 51.2% | — | 1,774 | 0 | 5 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 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 |