H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Cynthia Doerner vs Gail Sherriff H2H: 0-1
Gail Sherriff holds a 1–0 lead over Cynthia Doerner in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Gail Sherriff leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Gail Sherriff won the 1976 Rome third round 6-2 6-4.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
Age 75
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
FRA
Age 81
Right-Handed
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 27, 1976* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R32 | Clay | Gail Sherriff | 6-2 6-4 | Cynthia Doerner | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cynthia Doerner | — | — | — | 1,893 | 152 | 162 | 48.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| Gail Sherriff | — | — | — | 1,978 | 342 | 145 | 70.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 41 | 41 |
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 | Cynthia Doerner | Gail Sherriff | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 1968 | 1–3 | 25.0% | — | 1,471 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1969 | 0–5 | 0.0% | — | 1,428 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1970 | 2–3 | 40.0% | — | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1971 | 3–8 | 27.3% | — | 1,415 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 1972 | 21–20 | 51.2% | — | 1,624 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 1973 | 7–13 | 35.0% | — | 1,609 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 23 | 1974 | 4–5 | 44.4% | — | 1,625 | 0 | 1 | 1968 | 65–14 | 82.3% | — | 1,847 | 0 | 13 |
| 24 | 1975 | 44–23 | 65.7% | — | 1,852 | 0 | 4 | 1969 | 45–22 | 67.2% | — | 1,800 | 0 | 17 |
| 25 | 1976 | 18–26 | 40.9% | — | 1,713 | 0 | 4 | 1970 | 52–19 | 73.2% | — | 1,933 | 0 | 21 |
| 26 | 1977 | 15–19 | 44.1% | — | 1,742 | 0 | 4 | 1971 | 49–20 | 71.0% | — | 1,921 | 0 | 23 |
| 27 | 1978 | 11–18 | 37.9% | — | 1,621 | 0 | 4 | 1972 | 35–13 | 72.9% | — | 1,860 | 0 | 28 |
| 28 | 1979 | 14–12 | 53.8% | — | 1,649 | 0 | 5 | 1973 | 3–7 | 30.0% | — | 1,758 | 0 | 28 |
| 29 | 1980 | 12–7 | 63.2% | — | 1,662 | 0 | 5 | 1974 | 30–10 | 75.0% | — | 1,877 | 0 | 34 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1975 | 17–10 | 63.0% | — | 1,833 | 0 | 38 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1976 | 18–10 | 64.3% | — | 1,793 | 0 | 38 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1977 | 0–3 | 0.0% | — | 1,755 | 0 | 38 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1978 | 15–6 | 71.4% | — | 1,772 | 0 | 39 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1979 | 1–4 | 20.0% | — | 1,721 | 0 | 39 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1980 | 9–5 | 64.3% | — | 1,704 | 0 | 40 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1981 | 3–1 | 75.0% | — | 1,711 | 0 | 41 |
| 37 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1982 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,701 | 0 | 41 |