H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Linda Wild vs Zina Garrison H2H: 1-3
Zina Garrison holds a 3–1 lead over Linda Wild in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Zina Garrison leads 2–0 on carpet and 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Linda Wild won the 1996 San Diego 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 55
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H
1
–
3
4 main draw meetings
USA
Age 62
Right-Handed
164 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 22, 1996* | San Diego | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Linda Wild | 6-3 7-6 | Zina Garrison | Match data |
| Jun 26, 1992* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R64 | Grass | Zina Garrison | 6-2 6-4 | Linda Wild | Match data |
| Feb 14, 1992* | Chicago | WTA 250 | R16 | Carpet | Zina Garrison | 6-4 7-6 | Linda Wild | Match data |
| Feb 14, 1991* | Chicago | WTA 250 | R32 | Carpet | Zina Garrison | 6-3 6-3 | Linda Wild | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linda Wild | #252 | #23 | 823 | 1,823 | 135 | 146 | 48.0% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 5 |
| Zina Garrison | #318 | #4 | 134 | 2,142 | 581 | 268 | 68.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 14 | 15 |
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 | Linda Wild | Zina Garrison | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 1 | 1972 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,492 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1980 | 2–2 | 50.0% | — | 1,529 | 0 | 1 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1981 | 5–5 | 50.0% | — | 1,568 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | 1989 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #155 | 1,457 | 0 | 0 | 1982 | 23–15 | 60.5% | — | 1,853 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 1990 | 9–12 | 42.9% | #86 | 1,549 | 0 | 0 | 1983 | 38–18 | 67.9% | — | 1,989 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 1991 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #41 | 1,720 | 0 | 0 | 1984 | 47–20 | 70.1% | #9 | 2,012 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 1992 | 19–21 | 47.5% | #49 | 1,733 | 0 | 0 | 1985 | 51–18 | 73.9% | #8 | 2,032 | 0 | 4 |
| 22 | 1993 | 24–18 | 57.1% | #45 | 1,764 | 0 | 2 | 1986 | 48–22 | 68.6% | #11 | 1,999 | 0 | 5 |
| 23 | 1994 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #49 | 1,741 | 0 | 2 | 1987 | 44–17 | 72.1% | #9 | 1,987 | 0 | 7 |
| 24 | 1995 | 17–13 | 56.7% | #58 | 1,758 | 0 | 4 | 1988 | 49–20 | 71.0% | #9 | 2,021 | 0 | 7 |
| 25 | 1996 | 22–16 | 57.9% | #29 | 1,817 | 0 | 5 | 1989 | 60–15 | 80.0% | #4 | 2,130 | 0 | 10 |
| 26 | 1997 | 3–14 | 17.6% | #223 | 1,629 | 0 | 5 | 1990 | 48–18 | 72.7% | #10 | 2,039 | 0 | 11 |
| 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1991 | 37–18 | 67.3% | #12 | 1,963 | 0 | 11 |
| 28 | 1999 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #191 | 1,570 | 0 | 5 | 1992 | 36–19 | 65.5% | #18 | 1,924 | 0 | 12 |
| 29 | 2000 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #252 | 1,543 | 0 | 5 | 1993 | 43–19 | 69.4% | #14 | 1,995 | 0 | 14 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1994 | 24–16 | 60.0% | #24 | 1,889 | 0 | 14 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 25–16 | 61.0% | #22 | 1,868 | 0 | 15 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1996 | 1–10 | 9.1% | #273 | 1,704 | 0 | 15 |