H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Gail Sherriff vs Lesley Hunt H2H: 1-3
Lesley Hunt holds a 3–1 lead over Gail Sherriff in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on clay, while Lesley Hunt leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Lesley Hunt won the 1976 Rome quarterfinal 3-6 7-5 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.
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 29, 1976* | Rome | WTA 1000 | QF | Clay | Lesley Hunt | 3-6 7-5 6-1 | Gail Sherriff | Match data |
| May 19, 1971* | Bournemouth | WTA 250 | R64 | Clay | Gail Sherriff | 9-7 6-3 | Lesley Hunt | Match data |
| Aug 28, 1970* | South Orange | WTA 250 | R16 | Grass | Lesley Hunt | 6-1 6-2 | Gail Sherriff | Match data |
| Sep 15, 1969* | La Costa | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Lesley Hunt | 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 |
| Lesley Hunt | — | — | — | 1,933 | 306 | 244 | 55.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 |
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 | Lesley Hunt | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1968 | 23–18 | 56.1% | — | 1,596 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1969 | 32–21 | 60.4% | — | 1,735 | 0 | 2 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1970 | 45–20 | 69.2% | — | 1,919 | 0 | 6 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1971 | 35–27 | 56.5% | — | 1,829 | 0 | 7 |
| 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1972 | 42–27 | 60.9% | — | 1,903 | 0 | 8 |
| 23 | 1968 | 65–14 | 82.3% | — | 1,847 | 0 | 13 | 1973 | 22–25 | 46.8% | — | 1,868 | 0 | 8 |
| 24 | 1969 | 45–22 | 67.2% | — | 1,800 | 0 | 17 | 1974 | 26–17 | 60.5% | — | 1,915 | 0 | 9 |
| 25 | 1970 | 52–19 | 73.2% | — | 1,933 | 0 | 21 | 1975 | 13–16 | 44.8% | — | 1,865 | 0 | 9 |
| 26 | 1971 | 49–20 | 71.0% | — | 1,921 | 0 | 23 | 1976 | 26–22 | 54.2% | — | 1,821 | 0 | 9 |
| 27 | 1972 | 35–13 | 72.9% | — | 1,860 | 0 | 28 | 1977 | 10–13 | 43.5% | — | 1,769 | 0 | 10 |
| 28 | 1973 | 3–7 | 30.0% | — | 1,758 | 0 | 28 | 1978 | 30–30 | 50.0% | — | 1,823 | 0 | 10 |
| 29 | 1974 | 30–10 | 75.0% | — | 1,877 | 0 | 34 | 1979 | 2–8 | 20.0% | — | 1,761 | 0 | 10 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |