H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Erika De Lone vs Louise Field H2H: 0-1
Louise Field holds a 1–0 lead over Erika De Lone in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Louise Field leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Louise Field won the 1990 Newport fourth round 6-3 6-2.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
USA
Age 53
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
AUS
Age 59
Right-Handed
198 cm / 6'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 20, 1990* | Newport | WTA 250 | R16 | Grass | Louise Field | 6-3 6-2 | Erika De Lone | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Erika De Lone | #425 | #65 | 501 | 1,603 | 42 | 100 | 29.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Louise Field | #752 | #96 | 12 | 1,579 | 58 | 121 | 32.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Erika De Lone | Louise Field | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1982 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 1989 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #298 | 1,472 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1990 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #138 | 1,502 | 0 | 0 | 1984 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #248 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1991 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #110 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 | 1985 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #106 | 1,518 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1992 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #175 | 1,526 | 0 | 0 | 1986 | 4–10 | 28.6% | #157 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1993 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #183 | 1,515 | 0 | 0 | 1987 | 11–17 | 39.3% | #113 | 1,470 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1994 | 1–9 | 10.0% | #200 | 1,436 | 0 | 0 | 1988 | 4–13 | 23.5% | #163 | 1,421 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1995 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #124 | 1,482 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 12–20 | 37.5% | #100 | 1,545 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1996 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #131 | 1,449 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 9–17 | 34.6% | #125 | 1,523 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1997 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #149 | 1,442 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 3–14 | 17.6% | #193 | 1,436 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1998 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #178 | 1,443 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #170 | 1,450 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1999 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #67 | 1,500 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #175 | 1,471 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2000 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #118 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #197 | 1,477 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2001 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #180 | 1,428 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2002 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #165 | 1,422 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |