H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Heather Ludloff vs Raffaella Reggi Concato H2H: 0-1
Raffaella Reggi Concato holds a 1–0 lead over Heather Ludloff in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Raffaella Reggi Concato leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Raffaella Reggi Concato won the 1988 Eastbourne second 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.
USA
Age 65
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
Age 60
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 15, 1988* | Eastbourne | WTA 250 | R64 | Grass | Raffaella Reggi Concato | 6-3 6-1 | Heather Ludloff | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heather Ludloff | #512 | #69 | 11 | 1,576 | 48 | 106 | 31.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Raffaella Reggi Concato | — | — | — | 1,930 | 256 | 176 | 59.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 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 | Heather Ludloff | Raffaella Reggi Concato | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1980 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,497 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1981 | 0–5 | 0.0% | — | 1,431 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1982 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,424 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1978 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,488 | 0 | 0 | 1983 | 21–20 | 51.2% | — | 1,671 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1979 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 1984 | 17–14 | 54.8% | — | 1,754 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1980 | 2–5 | 28.6% | — | 1,465 | 0 | 0 | 1985 | 26–19 | 57.8% | — | 1,783 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 1981 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,440 | 0 | 0 | 1986 | 31–20 | 60.8% | — | 1,896 | 0 | 3 |
| 21 | 1982 | 3–4 | 42.9% | — | 1,473 | 0 | 0 | 1987 | 39–21 | 65.0% | — | 1,903 | 0 | 4 |
| 22 | 1983 | 7–15 | 31.8% | — | 1,516 | 0 | 0 | 1988 | 27–15 | 64.3% | — | 1,872 | 0 | 4 |
| 23 | 1984 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #129 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 39–22 | 63.9% | — | 1,863 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 1985 | 2–12 | 14.3% | #127 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 31–16 | 66.0% | — | 1,818 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 1986 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #192 | 1,475 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 11–11 | 50.0% | — | 1,708 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 1987 | 12–16 | 42.9% | #74 | 1,543 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 13–11 | 54.2% | — | 1,719 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | 1988 | 6–14 | 30.0% | #123 | 1,505 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 1989 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #164 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 1990 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #219 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 1991 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #141 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 1992 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #282 | 1,472 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |