H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Lea Antonoplis vs Sandy Collins H2H: 0-1
Sandy Collins holds a 1–0 lead over Lea Antonoplis in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Sandy Collins leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Sandy Collins won the 1980 Tucson fourth 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.
USA
Age 67
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
Age 67
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 19, 1980* | Tucson | WTA 250 | R16 | Carpet | Sandy Collins | 6-2 6-2 | 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 |
| Sandy Collins | — | — | — | 1,823 | 89 | 151 | 37.1% | 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 | Lea Antonoplis | Sandy Collins | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1973 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,497 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | 1974 | 2–5 | 28.6% | — | 1,532 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1975 | 3–4 | 42.9% | — | 1,559 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1976 | 7–6 | 53.8% | — | 1,626 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1977 | 6–4 | 60.0% | — | 1,665 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1978 | 17–20 | 45.9% | — | 1,717 | 0 | 0 | 1978 | 6–6 | 50.0% | — | 1,537 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1979 | 11–13 | 45.8% | — | 1,724 | 0 | 1 | 1979 | 2–7 | 22.2% | — | 1,495 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1980 | 14–7 | 66.7% | — | 1,735 | 0 | 2 | 1980 | 10–12 | 45.5% | — | 1,626 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1981 | 9–11 | 45.0% | — | 1,719 | 0 | 2 | 1981 | 25–20 | 55.6% | — | 1,786 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1982 | 8–18 | 30.8% | — | 1,632 | 0 | 2 | 1982 | 14–21 | 40.0% | — | 1,756 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1983 | 6–13 | 31.6% | — | 1,568 | 0 | 2 | 1983 | 13–20 | 39.4% | — | 1,690 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1984 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #71 | 1,583 | 0 | 2 | 1984 | 9–18 | 33.3% | — | 1,602 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1985 | 14–21 | 40.0% | #66 | 1,572 | 0 | 2 | 1985 | 1–9 | 10.0% | — | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1986 | 2–14 | 12.5% | #176 | 1,460 | 0 | 2 | 1986 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,501 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 1987 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #163 | 1,413 | 0 | 2 | 1987 | 0–4 | 0.0% | — | 1,454 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 1988 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #142 | 1,455 | 0 | 2 | 1988 | 3–5 | 37.5% | — | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 1989 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #210 | 1,448 | 0 | 2 | 1989 | 2–8 | 20.0% | — | 1,474 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 1990 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #599 | 1,432 | 0 | 2 | 1990 | 1–9 | 10.0% | — | 1,422 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1991 | 1–5 | 16.7% | — | 1,407 | 0 | 0 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1992 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,414 | 0 | 0 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1993 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,408 | 0 | 0 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1994 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,394 | 0 | 0 |