H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Gail Sherriff vs Winnie Shaw H2H: 1-3
Winnie Shaw holds a 3–1 lead over Gail Sherriff in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Winnie Shaw leads 2–0 on grass, while Gail Sherriff leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Gail Sherriff won the 1972 Johannesburg quarterfinal 6-0 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 1, 1972* | Johannesburg | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Gail Sherriff | 6-0 6-1 | Winnie Shaw | Match data |
| Feb 28, 1972* | Nairobi 2 | WTA 250 | F | — | Winnie Shaw | 2-6 6-2 6-4 | Gail Sherriff | Match data |
| Jun 20, 1970* | Queen's Club | WTA 250 | QF | Grass | Winnie Shaw | 6-2 6-4 | Gail Sherriff | Match data |
| Sep 2, 1969* | US Open | Grand Slam | R32 | Grass | Winnie Shaw | 6-3 6-1 | 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 |
| Winnie Shaw | — | — | — | 1,991 | 296 | 144 | 67.3% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 12 | 14 |
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 | Winnie Shaw | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1968 | 49–28 | 63.6% | — | 1,787 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1969 | 69–27 | 71.9% | — | 1,907 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 1968 | 65–14 | 82.3% | — | 1,847 | 0 | 13 | 1970 | 55–26 | 67.9% | — | 1,941 | 0 | 6 |
| 24 | 1969 | 45–22 | 67.2% | — | 1,800 | 0 | 17 | 1971 | 46–26 | 63.9% | — | 1,855 | 0 | 7 |
| 25 | 1970 | 52–19 | 73.2% | — | 1,933 | 0 | 21 | 1972 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,858 | 0 | 11 |
| 26 | 1971 | 49–20 | 71.0% | — | 1,921 | 0 | 23 | 1973 | 2–2 | 50.0% | — | 1,828 | 0 | 12 |
| 27 | 1972 | 35–13 | 72.9% | — | 1,860 | 0 | 28 | 1974 | 5–3 | 62.5% | — | 1,821 | 0 | 12 |
| 28 | 1973 | 3–7 | 30.0% | — | 1,758 | 0 | 28 | 1975 | 10–6 | 62.5% | — | 1,795 | 0 | 12 |
| 29 | 1974 | 30–10 | 75.0% | — | 1,877 | 0 | 34 | 1976 | 4–5 | 44.4% | — | 1,735 | 0 | 12 |
| 30 | 1975 | 17–10 | 63.0% | — | 1,833 | 0 | 38 | 1977 | 8–2 | 80.0% | — | 1,796 | 0 | 14 |
| 31 | 1976 | 18–10 | 64.3% | — | 1,793 | 0 | 38 | 1978 | 12–5 | 70.6% | — | 1,784 | 0 | 14 |
| 32 | 1977 | 0–3 | 0.0% | — | 1,755 | 0 | 38 | 1979 | 4–2 | 66.7% | — | 1,761 | 0 | 14 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |