H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Kate Latham vs Joanne Russell H2H: 1-2
Joanne Russell holds a 2–1 lead over Kate Latham in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Joanne Russell leads 1–0 on clay, while Kate Latham leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Kate Latham won the 1980 Carlsbad fourth round 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.
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 26, 1980* | Carlsbad | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Kate Latham | 6-2 6-3 | Joanne Russell | Match data |
| Aug 1, 1975 | New York | WTA 250 | BR | Clay | Joanne Russell | 6-1 6-2 | Kate Latham | Match data |
| Jul 5, 1975* | Grossinger | WTA 250 | QF | — | Joanne Russell | 7-6 7-6 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kate Latham | — | — | — | 1,866 | 198 | 202 | 49.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| Joanne Russell | — | — | — | 1,935 | 203 | 199 | 50.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 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 | Kate Latham | Joanne Russell | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 1969 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,489 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1970 | 1–3 | 25.0% | — | 1,476 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1973 | 3–2 | 60.0% | — | 1,544 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1972 | 3–3 | 50.0% | — | 1,503 | 0 | 0 | 1974 | 5–2 | 71.4% | — | 1,582 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 1973 | 6–7 | 46.2% | — | 1,587 | 0 | 0 | 1975 | 17–12 | 58.6% | — | 1,693 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 1974 | 40–16 | 71.4% | — | 1,844 | 0 | 3 | 1976 | 16–14 | 53.3% | — | 1,837 | 0 | 2 |
| 22 | 1975 | 15–20 | 42.9% | — | 1,690 | 0 | 3 | 1977 | 19–16 | 54.3% | — | 1,884 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 1976 | 4–2 | 66.7% | — | 1,680 | 0 | 3 | 1978 | 13–16 | 44.8% | — | 1,859 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 1977 | 15–12 | 55.6% | — | 1,755 | 0 | 3 | 1979 | 6–10 | 37.5% | — | 1,776 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 1978 | 13–17 | 43.3% | — | 1,661 | 0 | 3 | 1980 | 30–22 | 57.7% | — | 1,872 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 1979 | 21–23 | 47.7% | — | 1,848 | 0 | 3 | 1981 | 27–23 | 54.0% | — | 1,809 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 1980 | 23–22 | 51.1% | — | 1,750 | 0 | 4 | 1982 | 20–22 | 47.6% | — | 1,825 | 0 | 3 |
| 28 | 1981 | 21–20 | 51.2% | — | 1,774 | 0 | 5 | 1983 | 11–11 | 50.0% | — | 1,797 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 1982 | 24–28 | 46.2% | — | 1,688 | 0 | 5 | 1984 | 27–17 | 61.4% | — | 1,838 | 0 | 5 |
| 30 | 1983 | 9–16 | 36.0% | — | 1,625 | 0 | 6 | 1985 | 7–20 | 25.9% | — | 1,613 | 0 | 5 |
| 31 | 1984 | 0–11 | 0.0% | — | 1,494 | 0 | 6 | 1986 | 2–10 | 16.7% | — | 1,534 | 0 | 5 |
| 32 | 1985 | 3–1 | 75.0% | — | 1,528 | 0 | 6 | 1987 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,514 | 0 | 5 |