H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Etsuko Inoue vs Lori Mcneil H2H: 0-2
Lori Mcneil holds a 2–0 lead over Etsuko Inoue in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Lori Mcneil leads 1–0 on carpet and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Lori Mcneil won the 1987 Chicago fourth round 6-2 1-6 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.
JPN
Age 61
Right-Handed
164 cm / 5'5"
H2H
0
–
2
2 main draw meetings
USA
Age 62
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 13, 1987* | Chicago | WTA 250 | R16 | Carpet | Lori Mcneil | 6-2 1-6 6-1 | Etsuko Inoue | Match data |
| Aug 13, 1986* | Los Angeles | WTA 500 | R64 | Hard | Lori Mcneil | 6-3 6-7 7-6 | Etsuko Inoue | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Etsuko Inoue | #310 | #26 | 27 | 1,803 | 120 | 132 | 47.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Lori Mcneil | #867 | #9 | 303 | 2,032 | 377 | 273 | 58.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 11 |
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 | Etsuko Inoue | Lori Mcneil | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1980 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,487 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1981 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 1980 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,484 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1982 | 3–2 | 60.0% | — | 1,523 | 0 | 0 | 1981 | 2–0 | 100.0% | — | 1,520 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | 1983 | 17–15 | 53.1% | — | 1,642 | 0 | 1 | 1982 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,503 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 1984 | 19–19 | 50.0% | #68 | 1,700 | 0 | 2 | 1983 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,569 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 1985 | 13–21 | 38.2% | #70 | 1,633 | 0 | 2 | 1984 | 7–11 | 38.9% | #97 | 1,609 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 1986 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #80 | 1,636 | 0 | 2 | 1985 | 13–23 | 36.1% | #93 | 1,587 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1987 | 20–15 | 57.1% | #30 | 1,765 | 0 | 2 | 1986 | 42–22 | 65.6% | #14 | 1,884 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 1988 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #52 | 1,729 | 0 | 2 | 1987 | 54–24 | 69.2% | #11 | 2,017 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 1989 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #68 | 1,678 | 0 | 2 | 1988 | 46–20 | 69.7% | #13 | 1,904 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 1990 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #70 | 1,665 | 0 | 2 | 1989 | 24–22 | 52.2% | #36 | 1,760 | 0 | 6 |
| 26 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1990 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #52 | 1,696 | 0 | 6 |
| 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1991 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #19 | 1,870 | 0 | 8 |
| 28 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1992 | 37–20 | 64.9% | #15 | 1,962 | 0 | 9 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1993 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #25 | 1,898 | 0 | 10 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1994 | 26–15 | 63.4% | #17 | 1,871 | 0 | 11 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 19–19 | 50.0% | #34 | 1,804 | 0 | 11 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1996 | 8–14 | 36.4% | #83 | 1,726 | 0 | 11 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1997 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #301 | 1,655 | 0 | 11 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1998 | 8–6 | 57.1% | #91 | 1,717 | 0 | 11 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1999 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #869 | 1,669 | 0 | 11 |