H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Gail Sherriff vs Olga Morozova H2H: 1-4
Olga Morozova holds a 4–1 lead over Gail Sherriff in their WTA head-to-head. Across 5 main-draw meetings, Olga Morozova leads 3–1 on clay and 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Olga Morozova won the 1974 Rome fourth round 6- 3 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.
FRA
Age 81
Right-Handed
H2H
1
–
4
5 main draw meetings
Age 77
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 29, 1974* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R16 | Clay | Olga Morozova | 6- 3 6-1 | Gail Sherriff | Match data |
| Mar 19, 1973* | Boston | WTA 250 | QF | Carpet | Olga Morozova | 3-6 7-5 6-4 | Gail Sherriff | Match data |
| Apr 7, 1972* | Rome | WTA 1000 | SF | Clay | Olga Morozova | 2-6 6-1 6-3 | Gail Sherriff | Match data |
| Mar 11, 1969* | Cairo | WTA 250 | SF | Clay | Olga Morozova | 12-10 6-1 | Gail Sherriff | Match data |
| Mar 6, 1968* | Cairo | WTA 250 | QF | Clay | Gail Sherriff | 6-3 6-1 | Olga Morozova | 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 |
| Olga Morozova | — | — | — | 2,189 | 328 | 108 | 75.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 30 | 38 |
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 | Olga Morozova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1968 | 14–10 | 58.3% | — | 1,581 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1969 | 30–10 | 75.0% | — | 1,767 | 0 | 5 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1970 | 41–9 | 82.0% | — | 1,908 | 0 | 13 |
| 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1971 | 22–8 | 73.3% | — | 1,870 | 0 | 17 |
| 23 | 1968 | 65–14 | 82.3% | — | 1,847 | 0 | 13 | 1972 | 53–13 | 80.3% | — | 1,975 | 0 | 24 |
| 24 | 1969 | 45–22 | 67.2% | — | 1,800 | 0 | 17 | 1973 | 38–11 | 77.6% | — | 2,022 | 0 | 29 |
| 25 | 1970 | 52–19 | 73.2% | — | 1,933 | 0 | 21 | 1974 | 55–14 | 79.7% | — | 2,166 | 0 | 33 |
| 26 | 1971 | 49–20 | 71.0% | — | 1,921 | 0 | 23 | 1975 | 41–18 | 69.5% | — | 2,048 | 0 | 35 |
| 27 | 1972 | 35–13 | 72.9% | — | 1,860 | 0 | 28 | 1976 | 25–10 | 71.4% | — | 2,041 | 0 | 36 |
| 28 | 1973 | 3–7 | 30.0% | — | 1,758 | 0 | 28 | 1977 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 2,027 | 0 | 36 |
| 29 | 1974 | 30–10 | 75.0% | — | 1,877 | 0 | 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 1975 | 17–10 | 63.0% | — | 1,833 | 0 | 38 | 1979 | 2–0 | 100.0% | — | 2,038 | 0 | 37 |
| 31 | 1976 | 18–10 | 64.3% | — | 1,793 | 0 | 38 | 1980 | 1–0 | 100.0% | — | 2,039 | 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |