H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Kate Latham vs Zenda Liess H2H: 3-1
Kate Latham holds a 3–1 lead over Zenda Liess in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while Kate Latham leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Kate Latham won the 1980 Phoenix third round 6-2 6-2.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 9, 1980* | Phoenix | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Kate Latham | 6-2 6-2 | Zenda Liess | Match data |
| Aug 14, 1978 | Toronto | WTA 1000 | R16 | Hard | Zenda Liess | 6-3 3-6 7-6 | Kate Latham | Match data |
| Aug 11, 1978* | Indianapolis | WTA 250 | R16 | Clay | Kate Latham | 4-6 6-1 6-1 | Zenda Liess | Match data |
| Feb 2, 1978* | Chicago | WTA 250 | R32 | Carpet | Kate Latham | 6-1 6-3 | Zenda Liess | 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 |
| Zenda Liess | — | — | — | 1,742 | 42 | 61 | 40.8% | 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 | Kate Latham | Zenda Liess | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1974 | 7–7 | 50.0% | — | 1,549 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1975 | 4–5 | 44.4% | — | 1,568 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 1969 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,489 | 0 | 0 | 1976 | 7–4 | 63.6% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1970 | 1–3 | 25.0% | — | 1,476 | 0 | 0 | 1977 | 4–13 | 23.5% | — | 1,616 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1978 | 16–17 | 48.5% | — | 1,742 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1972 | 3–3 | 50.0% | — | 1,503 | 0 | 0 | 1979 | 3–11 | 21.4% | — | 1,662 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1973 | 6–7 | 46.2% | — | 1,587 | 0 | 0 | 1980 | 1–4 | 20.0% | — | 1,610 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1974 | 40–16 | 71.4% | — | 1,844 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 1975 | 15–20 | 42.9% | — | 1,690 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 23 | 1976 | 4–2 | 66.7% | — | 1,680 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 1977 | 15–12 | 55.6% | — | 1,755 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 25 | 1978 | 13–17 | 43.3% | — | 1,661 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 26 | 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |