H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Janet Newberry vs Kate Latham H2H: 3-1
Janet Newberry holds a 3–1 lead over Kate Latham in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Janet Newberry leads 2–0 on grass, while Kate Latham leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Kate Latham won the 1979 Indianapolis second round 4-6 6-2 6-3.
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 72
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
3
–
1
4 main draw meetings
Age 73
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 8, 1979* | Indianapolis | WTA 250 | R64 | Clay | Kate Latham | 4-6 6-2 6-3 | Janet Newberry | Match data |
| Jun 16, 1978* | Chichester | WTA 250 | R16 | Grass | Janet Newberry | 6-2 3-6 7-5 | Kate Latham | Match data |
| Jun 14, 1973* | Beckenham | WTA 250 | R32 | Grass | Janet Newberry | 6-3 7-5 | Kate Latham | Match data |
| Oct 3, 1969* | Berkeley | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Janet Newberry | 6-4 6-3 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Janet Newberry | — | — | — | 1,919 | 238 | 187 | 56.0% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 8 |
| 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 | Janet Newberry | Kate Latham | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | 1968 | 7–5 | 58.3% | — | 1,541 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 15 | 1969 | 13–6 | 68.4% | — | 1,645 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1970 | 20–7 | 74.1% | — | 1,726 | 0 | 5 | 1969 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1971 | 15–9 | 62.5% | — | 1,765 | 0 | 5 | 1970 | 1–3 | 25.0% | — | 1,476 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1972 | 20–17 | 54.1% | — | 1,707 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1973 | 32–24 | 57.1% | — | 1,851 | 0 | 5 | 1972 | 3–3 | 50.0% | — | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1974 | 22–22 | 50.0% | — | 1,810 | 0 | 5 | 1973 | 6–7 | 46.2% | — | 1,587 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1975 | 31–22 | 58.5% | — | 1,899 | 0 | 6 | 1974 | 40–16 | 71.4% | — | 1,844 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 1976 | 14–10 | 58.3% | — | 1,859 | 0 | 6 | 1975 | 15–20 | 42.9% | — | 1,690 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 1977 | 25–22 | 53.2% | — | 1,873 | 0 | 7 | 1976 | 4–2 | 66.7% | — | 1,680 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 1978 | 15–14 | 51.7% | — | 1,831 | 0 | 7 | 1977 | 15–12 | 55.6% | — | 1,755 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 1979 | 12–21 | 36.4% | — | 1,679 | 0 | 7 | 1978 | 13–17 | 43.3% | — | 1,661 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 1980 | 12–8 | 60.0% | — | 1,631 | 0 | 8 | 1979 | 21–23 | 47.7% | — | 1,848 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1980 | 23–22 | 51.1% | — | 1,750 | 0 | 4 |
| 28 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 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 |