H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Gail Sherriff vs Yvonne Vermaak H2H: 1-0
Gail Sherriff holds a 1–0 lead over Yvonne Vermaak in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Gail Sherriff leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Gail Sherriff won the 1976 Roland Garros second round 6-2 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
–
0
1 main draw meetings
RSA
Age 69
Right-Handed
155 cm / 5'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 1976* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R64 | Clay | Gail Sherriff | 6-2 6-1 | Yvonne Vermaak | 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 |
| Yvonne Vermaak | #558 | #38 | 10 | 1,891 | 239 | 249 | 49.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
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 | Yvonne Vermaak | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1973 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,495 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1974 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1975 | 15–12 | 55.6% | — | 1,599 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1976 | 8–10 | 44.4% | — | 1,607 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1977 | 20–14 | 58.8% | — | 1,766 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1978 | 29–23 | 55.8% | — | 1,797 | 0 | 2 |
| 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1979 | 15–23 | 39.5% | — | 1,781 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 1968 | 65–14 | 82.3% | — | 1,847 | 0 | 13 | 1980 | 19–18 | 51.4% | — | 1,740 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 1969 | 45–22 | 67.2% | — | 1,800 | 0 | 17 | 1981 | 19–28 | 40.4% | — | 1,721 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 1970 | 52–19 | 73.2% | — | 1,933 | 0 | 21 | 1982 | 36–27 | 57.1% | — | 1,819 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 1971 | 49–20 | 71.0% | — | 1,921 | 0 | 23 | 1983 | 33–26 | 55.9% | — | 1,754 | 0 | 4 |
| 27 | 1972 | 35–13 | 72.9% | — | 1,860 | 0 | 28 | 1984 | 29–28 | 50.9% | #41 | 1,801 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 1973 | 3–7 | 30.0% | — | 1,758 | 0 | 28 | 1985 | 8–21 | 27.6% | #41 | 1,605 | 0 | 5 |
| 29 | 1974 | 30–10 | 75.0% | — | 1,877 | 0 | 34 | 1986 | 6–11 | 35.3% | #104 | 1,565 | 0 | 5 |
| 30 | 1975 | 17–10 | 63.0% | — | 1,833 | 0 | 38 | 1987 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #201 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 |
| 31 | 1976 | 18–10 | 64.3% | — | 1,793 | 0 | 38 | 1988 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #287 | 1,542 | 0 | 5 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |