H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Gail Sherriff vs Janet Young H2H: 3-2
Gail Sherriff holds a 3–2 lead over Janet Young in their WTA head-to-head. Across 5 main-draw meetings, Gail Sherriff leads 2–1 on grass and 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Janet Young won the 1973 Dallas third 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.
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 8, 1973* | Dallas | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Janet Young | 6-3 6-2 | Gail Sherriff | Match data |
| Jan 8, 1972* | Sydney | WTA 500 | R16 | Grass | Janet Young | 6-0 6-3 | Gail Sherriff | Match data |
| Dec 27, 1971 | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R16 | Grass | Gail Sherriff | 7-5 4-6 6-1 | Janet Young | Match data |
| Jan 3, 1971* | Perth | WTA 250 | R16 | Grass | Gail Sherriff | 6-4 6-2 | Janet Young | Match data |
| Jul 25, 1969* | Indianapolis | WTA 250 | R16 | Clay | Gail Sherriff | 6-1 6-0 | Janet Young | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gail Sherriff | — | — | — | 1,978 | 342 | 145 | 70.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 41 | 41 |
| Janet Young | — | — | — | 1,805 | 83 | 86 | 49.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 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 | Gail Sherriff | Janet Young | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1968 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,468 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1969 | 17–27 | 38.6% | — | 1,538 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1970 | 5–5 | 50.0% | — | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1971 | 2–4 | 33.3% | — | 1,543 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1972 | 13–11 | 54.2% | — | 1,628 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1973 | 30–22 | 57.7% | — | 1,793 | 0 | 2 |
| 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1974 | 13–11 | 54.2% | — | 1,720 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 1968 | 65–14 | 82.3% | — | 1,847 | 0 | 13 | 1975 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,700 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 1969 | 45–22 | 67.2% | — | 1,800 | 0 | 17 | 1976 | 2–2 | 50.0% | — | 1,690 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 1970 | 52–19 | 73.2% | — | 1,933 | 0 | 21 | 1977 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,703 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 1971 | 49–20 | 71.0% | — | 1,921 | 0 | 23 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 1972 | 35–13 | 72.9% | — | 1,860 | 0 | 28 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 1973 | 3–7 | 30.0% | — | 1,758 | 0 | 28 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |