H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Kate Latham vs Patricia Medrado H2H: 1-0
Kate Latham holds a 1–0 lead over Patricia Medrado in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Kate Latham leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Kate Latham won the 1978 Indianapolis second round 6-1 6-4.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 9, 1978* | Indianapolis | WTA 250 | R64 | Clay | Kate Latham | 6-1 6-4 | Patricia Medrado | 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 |
| Patricia Medrado | #359 | #67 | 9 | 1,837 | 152 | 163 | 48.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 |
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 | Patricia Medrado | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1975 | 3–1 | 75.0% | — | 1,535 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1972 | 3–3 | 50.0% | — | 1,503 | 0 | 0 | 1976 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,516 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1973 | 6–7 | 46.2% | — | 1,587 | 0 | 0 | 1977 | 2–3 | 40.0% | — | 1,527 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 1974 | 40–16 | 71.4% | — | 1,844 | 0 | 3 | 1978 | 6–11 | 35.3% | — | 1,582 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1975 | 15–20 | 42.9% | — | 1,690 | 0 | 3 | 1979 | 3–6 | 33.3% | — | 1,600 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 1976 | 4–2 | 66.7% | — | 1,680 | 0 | 3 | 1980 | 22–10 | 68.8% | — | 1,649 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 1977 | 15–12 | 55.6% | — | 1,755 | 0 | 3 | 1981 | 38–20 | 65.5% | — | 1,740 | 0 | 8 |
| 25 | 1978 | 13–17 | 43.3% | — | 1,661 | 0 | 3 | 1982 | 33–25 | 56.9% | — | 1,779 | 0 | 10 |
| 26 | 1979 | 21–23 | 47.7% | — | 1,848 | 0 | 3 | 1983 | 4–18 | 18.2% | — | 1,577 | 0 | 10 |
| 27 | 1980 | 23–22 | 51.1% | — | 1,750 | 0 | 4 | 1984 | 11–15 | 42.3% | #108 | 1,588 | 0 | 10 |
| 28 | 1981 | 21–20 | 51.2% | — | 1,774 | 0 | 5 | 1985 | 8–14 | 36.4% | #108 | 1,542 | 0 | 10 |
| 29 | 1982 | 24–28 | 46.2% | — | 1,688 | 0 | 5 | 1986 | 12–14 | 46.2% | #76 | 1,562 | 0 | 10 |
| 30 | 1983 | 9–16 | 36.0% | — | 1,625 | 0 | 6 | 1987 | 6–13 | 31.6% | #117 | 1,552 | 0 | 10 |
| 31 | 1984 | 0–11 | 0.0% | — | 1,494 | 0 | 6 | 1988 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #180 | 1,474 | 0 | 10 |
| 32 | 1985 | 3–1 | 75.0% | — | 1,528 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |