H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Gail Sherriff vs Monique Van Haver H2H: 4-0
Gail Sherriff holds a 4–0 lead over Monique Van Haver in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Gail Sherriff leads 3–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Gail Sherriff won the 1976 Nice fourth round 6-1 6-3.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 9, 1976* | Nice | WTA 250 | R16 | Clay | Gail Sherriff | 6-1 6-3 | Monique Van Haver | Match data |
| Mar 28, 1974* | Beaulieu | WTA 250 | F | Clay | Gail Sherriff | 6-2 6-2 | Monique Van Haver | Match data |
| Mar 28, 1972* | Johannesburg | WTA 250 | R128 | Hard | Gail Sherriff | 6-4 6-3 | Monique Van Haver | Match data |
| May 25, 1968* | Brussels | WTA 250 | QF | Clay | Gail Sherriff | 9-7 6-2 | Monique Van Haver | 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 |
| Monique Van Haver | — | — | — | 1,598 | 30 | 38 | 44.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
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 | Monique Van Haver | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1968 | 2–3 | 40.0% | — | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1969 | 0–3 | 0.0% | — | 1,446 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1970 | 8–0 | 100.0% | — | 1,569 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1971 | 3–2 | 60.0% | — | 1,574 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 1968 | 65–14 | 82.3% | — | 1,847 | 0 | 13 | 1972 | 3–8 | 27.3% | — | 1,540 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 1969 | 45–22 | 67.2% | — | 1,800 | 0 | 17 | 1973 | 4–6 | 40.0% | — | 1,518 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 1970 | 52–19 | 73.2% | — | 1,933 | 0 | 21 | 1974 | 3–6 | 33.3% | — | 1,512 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 1971 | 49–20 | 71.0% | — | 1,921 | 0 | 23 | 1975 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,523 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 1972 | 35–13 | 72.9% | — | 1,860 | 0 | 28 | 1976 | 3–4 | 42.9% | — | 1,526 | 0 | 4 |
| 28 | 1973 | 3–7 | 30.0% | — | 1,758 | 0 | 28 | 1977 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,523 | 0 | 4 |
| 29 | 1974 | 30–10 | 75.0% | — | 1,877 | 0 | 34 | 1978 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,511 | 0 | 4 |
| 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 | 1981 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,502 | 0 | 4 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |