H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Jo Durie vs Pam Casale H2H: 1-2
Pam Casale holds a 2–1 lead over Jo Durie in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Pam Casale leads 1–0 on carpet and 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Jo Durie won the 1986 Boca Raton second round 6-4 7-6.
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
–
2
3 main draw meetings
USA
Age 62
Right-Handed
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 12, 1986* | Boca Raton | WTA 250 | R64 | Hard | Jo Durie | 6-4 7-6 | Pam Casale | Match data |
| May 20, 1983* | Berlin | WTA 500 | R16 | Clay | Pam Casale | 6-2 6-1 | Jo Durie | Match data |
| Jan 4, 1982 | Washington | WTA 250 | R32 | Carpet | Pam Casale | 6-3 6-1 | 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 |
| Pam Casale | #671 | #14 | 22 | 1,944 | 168 | 147 | 53.3% | 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 | Jo Durie | Pam Casale | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | 1975 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 15 | 1976 | 5–6 | 45.5% | — | 1,503 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1977 | 11–7 | 61.1% | — | 1,601 | 0 | 0 | 1980 | 15–10 | 60.0% | — | 1,597 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1978 | 18–10 | 64.3% | — | 1,618 | 0 | 1 | 1981 | 30–17 | 63.8% | — | 1,811 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1979 | 15–8 | 65.2% | — | 1,713 | 0 | 3 | 1982 | 20–23 | 46.5% | — | 1,746 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1980 | 21–14 | 60.0% | — | 1,734 | 0 | 4 | 1983 | 23–20 | 53.5% | — | 1,769 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1981 | 30–14 | 68.2% | — | 1,860 | 0 | 7 | 1984 | 31–17 | 64.6% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1982 | 25–20 | 55.6% | — | 1,841 | 0 | 7 | 1985 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #14 | 1,814 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1983 | 47–18 | 72.3% | — | 2,093 | 0 | 9 | 1986 | 16–17 | 48.5% | #41 | 1,787 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1984 | 16–15 | 51.6% | #24 | 1,889 | 0 | 9 | 1987 | 5–11 | 31.2% | #111 | 1,654 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1985 | 17–19 | 47.2% | #26 | 1,799 | 0 | 9 | 1988 | 4–10 | 28.6% | #169 | 1,542 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1986 | 24–17 | 58.5% | #24 | 1,842 | 0 | 9 | 1989 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #225 | 1,537 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1987 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #73 | 1,741 | 0 | 9 | 1990 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #554 | 1,516 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1988 | 19–19 | 50.0% | #60 | 1,704 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 1989 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #117 | 1,621 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 1990 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #64 | 1,674 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 1991 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #62 | 1,717 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 1992 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #59 | 1,693 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 1993 | 4–12 | 25.0% | #192 | 1,562 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 1994 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #348 | 1,554 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 1995 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #292 | 1,547 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |