H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Hana Mandlikova vs Kate Latham H2H: 2-0
Hana Mandlikova holds a 2–0 lead over Kate Latham in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Hana Mandlikova leads 1–0 on carpet and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Hana Mandlikova won the 1982 Mahwah third round 6-3 6-4.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
AUS
Age 64
Right-Handed
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
Age 73
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 26, 1982* | Mahwah | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Hana Mandlikova | 6-3 6-4 | Kate Latham | Match data |
| Feb 21, 1981* | Houston | WTA 250 | QF | Carpet | Hana Mandlikova | 6-3 6-4 | Kate Latham | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hana Mandlikova | #31 | #3 | 157 | 2,299 | 516 | 191 | 73.0% | 4 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 18 | 25 |
| Kate Latham | — | — | — | 1,866 | 198 | 202 | 49.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
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 | Hana Mandlikova | Kate Latham | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1977 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,492 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1978 | 22–8 | 73.3% | — | 1,750 | 0 | 1 | 1969 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1979 | 36–14 | 72.0% | — | 1,985 | 0 | 5 | 1970 | 1–3 | 25.0% | — | 1,476 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1980 | 76–17 | 81.7% | — | 2,230 | 1 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1981 | 56–24 | 70.0% | — | 2,108 | 2 | 14 | 1972 | 3–3 | 50.0% | — | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1982 | 35–19 | 64.8% | — | 1,998 | 2 | 14 | 1973 | 6–7 | 46.2% | — | 1,587 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1983 | 44–21 | 67.7% | — | 1,977 | 2 | 14 | 1974 | 40–16 | 71.4% | — | 1,844 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 1984 | 47–11 | 81.0% | #3 | 2,081 | 2 | 19 | 1975 | 15–20 | 42.9% | — | 1,690 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 1985 | 53–13 | 80.3% | #3 | 2,210 | 3 | 22 | 1976 | 4–2 | 66.7% | — | 1,680 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 1986 | 44–15 | 74.6% | #4 | 2,233 | 3 | 22 | 1977 | 15–12 | 55.6% | — | 1,755 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 1987 | 47–13 | 78.3% | #5 | 2,136 | 4 | 25 | 1978 | 13–17 | 43.3% | — | 1,661 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 1988 | 15–7 | 68.2% | #29 | 2,031 | 4 | 25 | 1979 | 21–23 | 47.7% | — | 1,848 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 1989 | 33–19 | 63.5% | #14 | 1,941 | 4 | 25 | 1980 | 23–22 | 51.1% | — | 1,750 | 0 | 4 |
| 28 | 1990 | 8–9 | 47.1% | #31 | 1,809 | 4 | 25 | 1981 | 21–20 | 51.2% | — | 1,774 | 0 | 5 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1982 | 24–28 | 46.2% | — | 1,688 | 0 | 5 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1983 | 9–16 | 36.0% | — | 1,625 | 0 | 6 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1984 | 0–11 | 0.0% | — | 1,494 | 0 | 6 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1985 | 3–1 | 75.0% | — | 1,528 | 0 | 6 |