H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Francoise Durr vs Laurie Tenney H2H: 3-0
Francoise Durr holds a 3–0 lead over Laurie Tenney in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Francoise Durr leads 1–0 on carpet and 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Francoise Durr won the 1972 Chichester third round 6-0 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.
FRA
Age 83
Right-Handed
162 cm / 5'4"
H2H
3
–
0
3 main draw meetings
Age 70
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 8, 1972* | Chichester | WTA 250 | R32 | Grass | Francoise Durr | 6-0 6-2 | Laurie Tenney | Match data |
| Jan 30, 1972* | Boston | WTA 250 | R16 | Carpet | Francoise Durr | 6-4 6-2 | Laurie Tenney | Match data |
| Sep 23, 1971* | Los Angeles | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Francoise Durr | 6-3 6-1 | Laurie Tenney | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Francoise Durr | — | — | — | 2,144 | 373 | 235 | 61.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 9 |
| Laurie Tenney | — | — | — | 1,720 | 64 | 80 | 44.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
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 | Francoise Durr | Laurie Tenney | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 12 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1968 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,482 | 0 | 0 |
| 13 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1969 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,482 | 0 | 0 |
| 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1970 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,523 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1971 | 4–6 | 40.0% | — | 1,543 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1972 | 9–9 | 50.0% | — | 1,576 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1973 | 17–11 | 60.7% | — | 1,678 | 0 | 2 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1974 | 18–21 | 46.2% | — | 1,635 | 0 | 2 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1975 | 8–15 | 34.8% | — | 1,600 | 0 | 2 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1976 | 1–10 | 9.1% | — | 1,517 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1977 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,499 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 1968 | 20–10 | 66.7% | — | 1,677 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 26 | 1969 | 37–18 | 67.3% | — | 1,816 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 1970 | 47–26 | 64.4% | — | 1,970 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 1971 | 86–36 | 70.5% | — | 2,112 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 1972 | 50–25 | 66.7% | — | 2,017 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 1973 | 32–21 | 60.4% | — | 2,056 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 1974 | 27–17 | 61.4% | — | 2,036 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 1975 | 28–18 | 60.9% | — | 1,995 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 1976 | 18–20 | 47.4% | — | 1,913 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 1977 | 13–20 | 39.4% | — | 1,833 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 1978 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,824 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 1979 | 3–12 | 20.0% | — | 1,704 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 1981 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,701 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |