H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Cynthia Doerner vs Sue Barker H2H: 1-4
Sue Barker holds a 4–1 lead over Cynthia Doerner in their WTA head-to-head. Across 5 main-draw meetings, Sue Barker leads 2–0 on grass, while Cynthia Doerner leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Sue Barker won the 1980 Manchester quarterfinal 3-6 6-3 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.
Age 75
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H
1
–
4
5 main draw meetings
GBR
Age 70
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 7, 1980* | Manchester | WTA 250 | QF | — | Sue Barker | 3-6 6-3 6-1 | Cynthia Doerner | Match data |
| Dec 20, 1979* | New South Wales | WTA 250 | R32 | Grass | Sue Barker | 3-6 6-3 6-0 | Cynthia Doerner | Match data |
| Jun 10, 1979* | Manchester | WTA 250 | QF | Grass | Sue Barker | 6-4 6-1 | Cynthia Doerner | Match data |
| Aug 16, 1976 | Toronto | WTA 250 | QF | Clay | Cynthia Doerner | 6-3 6-2 | Sue Barker | Match data |
| Jan 16, 1976* | Houston | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Sue Barker | 6-7(0) 6-2 6-2 | 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 |
| Sue Barker | #162 | #57 | — | 2,257 | 381 | 217 | 63.7% | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 18 | 22 |
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 | Sue Barker | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1970 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,513 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1971 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,526 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1972 | 3–2 | 60.0% | — | 1,543 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1968 | 1–3 | 25.0% | — | 1,471 | 0 | 0 | 1973 | 8–6 | 57.1% | — | 1,571 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | 1969 | 0–5 | 0.0% | — | 1,428 | 0 | 0 | 1974 | 40–20 | 66.7% | — | 1,771 | 0 | 6 |
| 19 | 1970 | 2–3 | 40.0% | — | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | 1975 | 50–19 | 72.5% | — | 1,967 | 0 | 11 |
| 20 | 1971 | 3–8 | 27.3% | — | 1,415 | 0 | 0 | 1976 | 64–23 | 73.6% | — | 2,057 | 1 | 14 |
| 21 | 1972 | 21–20 | 51.2% | — | 1,624 | 0 | 1 | 1977 | 51–18 | 73.9% | — | 2,107 | 1 | 16 |
| 22 | 1973 | 7–13 | 35.0% | — | 1,609 | 0 | 1 | 1978 | 16–14 | 53.3% | — | 1,922 | 1 | 17 |
| 23 | 1974 | 4–5 | 44.4% | — | 1,625 | 0 | 1 | 1979 | 54–24 | 69.2% | — | 2,017 | 1 | 20 |
| 24 | 1975 | 44–23 | 65.7% | — | 1,852 | 0 | 4 | 1980 | 34–18 | 65.4% | — | 1,931 | 1 | 20 |
| 25 | 1976 | 18–26 | 40.9% | — | 1,713 | 0 | 4 | 1981 | 28–18 | 60.9% | — | 1,959 | 1 | 21 |
| 26 | 1977 | 15–19 | 44.1% | — | 1,742 | 0 | 4 | 1982 | 11–19 | 36.7% | — | 1,803 | 1 | 21 |
| 27 | 1978 | 11–18 | 37.9% | — | 1,621 | 0 | 4 | 1983 | 18–20 | 47.4% | — | 1,750 | 1 | 22 |
| 28 | 1979 | 14–12 | 53.8% | — | 1,649 | 0 | 5 | 1984 | 2–14 | 12.5% | #57 | 1,556 | 1 | 22 |
| 29 | 1980 | 12–7 | 63.2% | — | 1,662 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |