H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Lea Antonoplis vs Catarina Lindqvist Ryan H2H: 0-3
Catarina Lindqvist Ryan holds a 3–0 lead over Lea Antonoplis in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Catarina Lindqvist Ryan leads 1–0 on carpet and 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Catarina Lindqvist Ryan won the 1989 Australian Open second round 0-6 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.
USA
Age 67
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H
0
–
3
3 main draw meetings
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 20, 1989* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Catarina Lindqvist Ryan | 0-6 6-2 6-3 | Lea Antonoplis | Match data |
| Dec 14, 1984* | Tokyo Pan Pacific | WTA 250 | R16 | Carpet | Catarina Lindqvist Ryan | 6-4 7-5 | Lea Antonoplis | Match data |
| May 25, 1983* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R128 | Clay | Catarina Lindqvist Ryan | 6-2 6-3 | Lea Antonoplis | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lea Antonoplis | #599 | #66 | 6 | 1,774 | 126 | 176 | 41.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Catarina Lindqvist Ryan | — | — | — | 1,989 | 259 | 190 | 57.7% | 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.
| Lea Antonoplis | Catarina Lindqvist Ryan | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 1973 | 8–3 | 72.7% | — | 1,579 | 0 | 0 | 1979 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,487 | 0 | 0 |
| 1974 | 2–5 | 28.6% | — | 1,532 | 0 | 0 | 1981 | 2–5 | 28.6% | — | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 1975 | 3–4 | 42.9% | — | 1,559 | 0 | 0 | 1982 | 5–10 | 33.3% | — | 1,477 | 0 | 0 |
| 1976 | 7–6 | 53.8% | — | 1,626 | 0 | 0 | 1983 | 4–4 | 50.0% | — | 1,526 | 0 | 0 |
| 1977 | 6–4 | 60.0% | — | 1,665 | 0 | 0 | 1984 | 28–16 | 63.6% | — | 1,790 | 0 | 2 |
| 1978 | 17–20 | 45.9% | — | 1,717 | 0 | 0 | 1985 | 44–18 | 71.0% | — | 1,974 | 0 | 3 |
| 1979 | 11–13 | 45.8% | — | 1,724 | 0 | 1 | 1986 | 28–22 | 56.0% | — | 1,881 | 0 | 3 |
| 1980 | 14–7 | 66.7% | — | 1,735 | 0 | 2 | 1987 | 34–20 | 63.0% | — | 1,874 | 0 | 3 |
| 1981 | 9–11 | 45.0% | — | 1,719 | 0 | 2 | 1988 | 27–22 | 55.1% | — | 1,798 | 0 | 3 |
| 1982 | 8–18 | 30.8% | — | 1,632 | 0 | 2 | 1989 | 29–19 | 60.4% | — | 1,785 | 0 | 3 |
| 1983 | 6–13 | 31.6% | — | 1,568 | 0 | 2 | 1990 | 19–16 | 54.3% | — | 1,726 | 0 | 4 |
| 1984 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #71 | 1,583 | 0 | 2 | 1991 | 25–22 | 53.2% | — | 1,716 | 0 | 5 |
| 1985 | 14–21 | 40.0% | #66 | 1,572 | 0 | 2 | 1992 | 14–15 | 48.3% | — | 1,658 | 0 | 5 |
| 1986 | 2–14 | 12.5% | #176 | 1,460 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1987 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #163 | 1,413 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1988 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #142 | 1,455 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1989 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #210 | 1,448 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1990 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #599 | 1,432 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |