H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Jo Durie vs Larisa Savchenko H2H: 1-3
Larisa Savchenko holds a 3–1 lead over Jo Durie in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Larisa Savchenko leads 2–1 on hard courts and 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Larisa Savchenko won the 1992 Australian Open second round 6-4 4-6 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.
GBR
Age 65
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H
1
–
3
4 main draw meetings
URS
169 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 17, 1992* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Larisa Savchenko | 6-4 4-6 6-1 | Jo Durie | Match data |
| Sep 28, 1991* | St. Petersburg | WTA 500 | SF | Carpet | Larisa Savchenko | 6-4 6-4 | Jo Durie | Match data |
| Jul 30, 1990 | Toronto | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Jo Durie | 6-2 4-2 (ret.) | Larisa Savchenko | Match data |
| Feb 6, 1985* | Delray Beach | WTA 1000 | R128 | Hard | Larisa Savchenko | 6-3 6-4 | Jo Durie | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jo Durie | #302 | #5 | 31 | 2,099 | 314 | 264 | 54.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Larisa Savchenko | #305 | #13 | 454 | 1,926 | 238 | 239 | 49.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
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.
| Jo Durie | Larisa Savchenko | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 1975 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | 1983 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,497 | 0 | 0 |
| 1976 | 5–6 | 45.5% | — | 1,503 | 0 | 0 | 1984 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #138 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 |
| 1977 | 11–7 | 61.1% | — | 1,601 | 0 | 0 | 1985 | 15–17 | 46.9% | #55 | 1,683 | 0 | 0 |
| 1978 | 18–10 | 64.3% | — | 1,618 | 0 | 1 | 1986 | 19–16 | 54.3% | #36 | 1,755 | 0 | 0 |
| 1979 | 15–8 | 65.2% | — | 1,713 | 0 | 3 | 1987 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #24 | 1,792 | 0 | 0 |
| 1980 | 21–14 | 60.0% | — | 1,734 | 0 | 4 | 1988 | 26–16 | 61.9% | #16 | 1,861 | 0 | 0 |
| 1981 | 30–14 | 68.2% | — | 1,860 | 0 | 7 | 1989 | 24–16 | 60.0% | #20 | 1,887 | 0 | 0 |
| 1982 | 25–20 | 55.6% | — | 1,841 | 0 | 7 | 1990 | 13–18 | 41.9% | #91 | 1,715 | 0 | 0 |
| 1983 | 47–18 | 72.3% | — | 2,093 | 0 | 9 | 1991 | 19–16 | 54.3% | #48 | 1,702 | 0 | 1 |
| 1984 | 16–15 | 51.6% | #24 | 1,889 | 0 | 9 | 1992 | 18–18 | 50.0% | #58 | 1,728 | 0 | 1 |
| 1985 | 17–19 | 47.2% | #26 | 1,799 | 0 | 9 | 1993 | 20–17 | 54.1% | #33 | 1,755 | 0 | 2 |
| 1986 | 24–17 | 58.5% | #24 | 1,842 | 0 | 9 | 1994 | 19–20 | 48.7% | #41 | 1,809 | 0 | 2 |
| 1987 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #73 | 1,741 | 0 | 9 | 1995 | 11–20 | 35.5% | #99 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 |
| 1988 | 19–19 | 50.0% | #60 | 1,704 | 0 | 9 | 1996 | 11–14 | 44.0% | #61 | 1,669 | 0 | 2 |
| 1989 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #117 | 1,621 | 0 | 9 | 1997 | 8–14 | 36.4% | #87 | 1,622 | 0 | 2 |
| 1990 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #64 | 1,674 | 0 | 9 | 1998 | 8–10 | 44.4% | #73 | 1,654 | 0 | 2 |
| 1991 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #62 | 1,717 | 0 | 9 | 1999 | 2–8 | 20.0% | #210 | 1,586 | 0 | 2 |
| 1992 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #59 | 1,693 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1993 | 4–12 | 25.0% | #192 | 1,562 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1994 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #348 | 1,554 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1995 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #292 | 1,547 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |