H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 04:30 UTC
Heather Watson vs Nicole Gibbs H2H: 2-1
Heather Watson holds a 2–1 lead over Nicole Gibbs in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while Heather Watson leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Heather Watson won the 2017 Indian Wells first round 4-6 6-2 6-2.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
GBR
Age 34
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
USA
Age 33
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 29, 2017 | Beijing | WTA 1000 | Q1 | Hard | Nicole Gibbs | 6-7(3) 6-4 6-4 | Heather Watson | Match data |
| Mar 10, 2017* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R128 | Hard | Heather Watson | 4-6 6-2 6-2 | Nicole Gibbs | Match data |
| May 24, 2016* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R128 | Clay | Heather Watson | 5-7 6-2 6-2 | Nicole Gibbs | Match data |
| Sep 18, 2014* | Seoul | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Nicole Gibbs | 7-5 6-2 | Heather Watson | 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 Watson | #470 | #38 | 1,386 | 1,755 | 144 | 195 | 42.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Nicole Gibbs | #175 | #68 | 946 | 1,692 | 37 | 60 | 38.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 Watson | Nicole Gibbs | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 2010 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #176 | 1,472 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2011 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #92 | 1,537 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #222 | 1,504 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2012 | 17–16 | 51.5% | #49 | 1,690 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #185 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2013 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #121 | 1,550 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #96 | 1,549 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2014 | 9–17 | 34.6% | #49 | 1,555 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #109 | 1,505 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2015 | 18–19 | 48.6% | #55 | 1,614 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #89 | 1,590 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2016 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #76 | 1,584 | 0 | 3 | 2017 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #109 | 1,580 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2017 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #73 | 1,626 | 0 | 3 | 2018 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #123 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2018 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #91 | 1,584 | 0 | 3 | 2019 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #126 | 1,628 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2019 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #103 | 1,622 | 0 | 3 | 2020 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #172 | 1,606 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2020 | 9–8 | 52.9% | #58 | 1,663 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2021 | 7–16 | 30.4% | #72 | 1,590 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2022 | 9–12 | 42.9% | #139 | 1,569 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2023 | 8–7 | 53.3% | #137 | 1,598 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2024 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #162 | 1,570 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2025 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #269 | 1,545 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2026 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #470 | 1,592 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |