H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Gail Sherriff vs Nancy Richey H2H: 2-2
Gail Sherriff and Nancy Richey are tied 2–2 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Gail Sherriff leads 2–1 on clay, while Nancy Richey leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Gail Sherriff won the 1972 Roland Garros third round W/O.
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 81
Right-Handed
H2H
2
–
2
4 main draw meetings
USA
Age 83
Right-Handed
160 cm / 5'3"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 28, 1972* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R32 | Clay | Gail Sherriff | (w/o) | Nancy Richey | Match data |
| Sep 8, 1970* | US Open | Grand Slam | R32 | Grass | Nancy Richey | 6-3 6-3 | Gail Sherriff | Match data |
| Jul 26, 1969* | Indianapolis | WTA 250 | SF | Clay | Gail Sherriff | 6-3 6-4 | Nancy Richey | Match data |
| Jun 3, 1969* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R32 | Clay | Nancy Richey | 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 |
| Nancy Richey | — | — | — | 2,236 | 324 | 109 | 74.8% | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 24 | 28 |
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 | Nancy Richey | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 23 | 1968 | 65–14 | 82.3% | — | 1,847 | 0 | 13 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 1969 | 45–22 | 67.2% | — | 1,800 | 0 | 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 25 | 1970 | 52–19 | 73.2% | — | 1,933 | 0 | 21 | 1968 | 56–5 | 91.8% | — | 1,887 | 1 | 10 |
| 26 | 1971 | 49–20 | 71.0% | — | 1,921 | 0 | 23 | 1969 | 33–8 | 80.5% | — | 2,031 | 1 | 13 |
| 27 | 1972 | 35–13 | 72.9% | — | 1,860 | 0 | 28 | 1970 | 43–8 | 84.3% | — | 2,114 | 1 | 20 |
| 28 | 1973 | 3–7 | 30.0% | — | 1,758 | 0 | 28 | 1971 | 29–13 | 69.0% | — | 2,078 | 1 | 20 |
| 29 | 1974 | 30–10 | 75.0% | — | 1,877 | 0 | 34 | 1972 | 45–12 | 78.9% | — | 2,128 | 1 | 25 |
| 30 | 1975 | 17–10 | 63.0% | — | 1,833 | 0 | 38 | 1973 | 34–13 | 72.3% | — | 2,162 | 1 | 25 |
| 31 | 1976 | 18–10 | 64.3% | — | 1,793 | 0 | 38 | 1974 | 25–13 | 65.8% | — | 2,057 | 1 | 25 |
| 32 | 1977 | 0–3 | 0.0% | — | 1,755 | 0 | 38 | 1975 | 24–11 | 68.6% | — | 2,080 | 1 | 26 |
| 33 | 1978 | 15–6 | 71.4% | — | 1,772 | 0 | 39 | 1976 | 14–10 | 58.3% | — | 2,034 | 1 | 26 |
| 34 | 1979 | 1–4 | 20.0% | — | 1,721 | 0 | 39 | 1977 | 15–7 | 68.2% | — | 1,983 | 1 | 28 |
| 35 | 1980 | 9–5 | 64.3% | — | 1,704 | 0 | 40 | 1978 | 6–9 | 40.0% | — | 1,902 | 1 | 28 |
| 36 | 1981 | 3–1 | 75.0% | — | 1,711 | 0 | 41 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 1982 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,701 | 0 | 41 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |