H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Lesley Turner vs Gail Sherriff H2H: 1-3
Gail Sherriff holds a 3–1 lead over Lesley Turner in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Gail Sherriff leads 2–1 on clay. Most recently, Lesley Turner won the 1969 Cincinnati final 1-6 7-5 10-10 RET.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
Age 83
Right-Handed
H2H
1
–
3
4 main draw meetings
FRA
Age 81
Right-Handed
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 20, 1969* | Cincinnati | WTA 1000 | F | Clay | Lesley Turner | 1-6 7-5 10-10 (ret.) | Gail Sherriff | Match data |
| Sep 7, 1968* | Brumana | WTA 250 | F | Clay | Gail Sherriff | 6-2 9-7 | Lesley Turner | Match data |
| Aug 31, 1968* | Ankara | WTA 250 | F | — | Gail Sherriff | 6-3 7-5 | Lesley Turner | Match data |
| Aug 25, 1968* | Istanbul | WTA 250 | F | Clay | Gail Sherriff | 6-2 7-5 | Lesley Turner | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lesley Turner | — | — | — | 1,912 | 144 | 76 | 65.5% | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 10 |
| Gail Sherriff | — | — | — | 1,978 | 342 | 145 | 70.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 41 | 41 |
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 | Lesley Turner | Gail Sherriff | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 23 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1968 | 65–14 | 82.3% | — | 1,847 | 0 | 13 |
| 24 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1969 | 45–22 | 67.2% | — | 1,800 | 0 | 17 |
| 25 | 1968 | 48–22 | 68.6% | — | 1,724 | 0 | 4 | 1970 | 52–19 | 73.2% | — | 1,933 | 0 | 21 |
| 26 | 1969 | 55–22 | 71.4% | — | 1,873 | 0 | 7 | 1971 | 49–20 | 71.0% | — | 1,921 | 0 | 23 |
| 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1972 | 35–13 | 72.9% | — | 1,860 | 0 | 28 |
| 28 | 1971 | 20–12 | 62.5% | — | 1,864 | 0 | 9 | 1973 | 3–7 | 30.0% | — | 1,758 | 0 | 28 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1974 | 30–10 | 75.0% | — | 1,877 | 0 | 34 |
| 30 | 1973 | 6–4 | 60.0% | — | 1,853 | 0 | 9 | 1975 | 17–10 | 63.0% | — | 1,833 | 0 | 38 |
| 31 | 1974 | 3–3 | 50.0% | — | 1,825 | 0 | 10 | 1976 | 18–10 | 64.3% | — | 1,793 | 0 | 38 |
| 32 | 1975 | 4–3 | 57.1% | — | 1,810 | 0 | 10 | 1977 | 0–3 | 0.0% | — | 1,755 | 0 | 38 |
| 33 | 1976 | 5–4 | 55.6% | — | 1,799 | 0 | 10 | 1978 | 15–6 | 71.4% | — | 1,772 | 0 | 39 |
| 34 | 1977 | 1–3 | 25.0% | — | 1,770 | 0 | 10 | 1979 | 1–4 | 20.0% | — | 1,721 | 0 | 39 |
| 35 | 1978 | 2–3 | 40.0% | — | 1,772 | 0 | 10 | 1980 | 9–5 | 64.3% | — | 1,704 | 0 | 40 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1981 | 3–1 | 75.0% | — | 1,711 | 0 | 41 |
| 37 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1982 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,701 | 0 | 41 |