H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Lea Antonoplis vs Nicole Bradtke H2H: 1-0
Lea Antonoplis holds a 1–0 lead over Nicole Bradtke in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Lea Antonoplis leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Lea Antonoplis won the 1985 Melbourne third round 6-3 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.
USA
Age 67
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
AUS
Age 56
Right-Handed
176 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 16, 1985* | Melbourne | WTA 250 | R32 | Carpet | Lea Antonoplis | 6-3 7-6 | Nicole Bradtke | 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 |
| Nicole Bradtke | #394 | #24 | 256 | 1,868 | 181 | 162 | 52.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
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 | Lea Antonoplis | Nicole Bradtke | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | 1973 | 8–3 | 72.7% | — | 1,579 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 15 | 1974 | 2–5 | 28.6% | — | 1,532 | 0 | 0 | 1985 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #147 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 1975 | 3–4 | 42.9% | — | 1,559 | 0 | 0 | 1986 | 6–5 | 54.5% | #123 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1976 | 7–6 | 53.8% | — | 1,626 | 0 | 0 | 1987 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #78 | 1,600 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1977 | 6–4 | 60.0% | — | 1,665 | 0 | 0 | 1988 | 24–17 | 58.5% | #34 | 1,738 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1978 | 17–20 | 45.9% | — | 1,717 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 16–17 | 48.5% | #61 | 1,710 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1979 | 11–13 | 45.8% | — | 1,724 | 0 | 1 | 1990 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #49 | 1,757 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1980 | 14–7 | 66.7% | — | 1,735 | 0 | 2 | 1991 | 21–19 | 52.5% | #45 | 1,760 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1981 | 9–11 | 45.0% | — | 1,719 | 0 | 2 | 1992 | 21–17 | 55.3% | #47 | 1,714 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 1982 | 8–18 | 30.8% | — | 1,632 | 0 | 2 | 1993 | 26–14 | 65.0% | #26 | 1,757 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 1983 | 6–13 | 31.6% | — | 1,568 | 0 | 2 | 1994 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #153 | 1,705 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 1984 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #71 | 1,583 | 0 | 2 | 1995 | 21–15 | 58.3% | #37 | 1,786 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 1985 | 14–21 | 40.0% | #66 | 1,572 | 0 | 2 | 1996 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #94 | 1,709 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 1986 | 2–14 | 12.5% | #176 | 1,460 | 0 | 2 | 1997 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #394 | 1,697 | 0 | 3 |
| 28 | 1987 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #163 | 1,413 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 1988 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #142 | 1,455 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 1989 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #210 | 1,448 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 1990 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #599 | 1,432 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |