H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Gail Sherriff vs Kate Latham H2H: 0-1
Kate Latham holds a 1–0 lead over Gail Sherriff in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Kate Latham leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Kate Latham won the 1978 Roland Garros second round 4-6 6-4 6-4.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 1, 1978* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R64 | Clay | Kate Latham | 4-6 6-4 6-4 | Gail Sherriff | 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 |
| Kate Latham | — | — | — | 1,866 | 198 | 202 | 49.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
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 | Kate Latham | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1969 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1970 | 1–3 | 25.0% | — | 1,476 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1972 | 3–3 | 50.0% | — | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1973 | 6–7 | 46.2% | — | 1,587 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1974 | 40–16 | 71.4% | — | 1,844 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1975 | 15–20 | 42.9% | — | 1,690 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 1968 | 65–14 | 82.3% | — | 1,847 | 0 | 13 | 1976 | 4–2 | 66.7% | — | 1,680 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 1969 | 45–22 | 67.2% | — | 1,800 | 0 | 17 | 1977 | 15–12 | 55.6% | — | 1,755 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 1970 | 52–19 | 73.2% | — | 1,933 | 0 | 21 | 1978 | 13–17 | 43.3% | — | 1,661 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 1971 | 49–20 | 71.0% | — | 1,921 | 0 | 23 | 1979 | 21–23 | 47.7% | — | 1,848 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 1972 | 35–13 | 72.9% | — | 1,860 | 0 | 28 | 1980 | 23–22 | 51.1% | — | 1,750 | 0 | 4 |
| 28 | 1973 | 3–7 | 30.0% | — | 1,758 | 0 | 28 | 1981 | 21–20 | 51.2% | — | 1,774 | 0 | 5 |
| 29 | 1974 | 30–10 | 75.0% | — | 1,877 | 0 | 34 | 1982 | 24–28 | 46.2% | — | 1,688 | 0 | 5 |
| 30 | 1975 | 17–10 | 63.0% | — | 1,833 | 0 | 38 | 1983 | 9–16 | 36.0% | — | 1,625 | 0 | 6 |
| 31 | 1976 | 18–10 | 64.3% | — | 1,793 | 0 | 38 | 1984 | 0–11 | 0.0% | — | 1,494 | 0 | 6 |
| 32 | 1977 | 0–3 | 0.0% | — | 1,755 | 0 | 38 | 1985 | 3–1 | 75.0% | — | 1,528 | 0 | 6 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |