H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Lori Mcneil vs Jana Novotna H2H: 0-3
Jana Novotna holds a 3–0 lead over Lori Mcneil in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Jana Novotna leads 2–0 on carpet and 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Jana Novotna won the 1996 Philadelphia fourth round 6-4 7-5.
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 62
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
0
–
3
3 main draw meetings
CZE
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 15, 1996* | Philadelphia | WTA 250 | R16 | Carpet | Jana Novotna | 6-4 7-5 | Lori Mcneil | Match data |
| Jun 21, 1991* | Eastbourne | WTA 250 | R16 | Grass | Jana Novotna | 6-2 7-6 | Lori Mcneil | Match data |
| Oct 26, 1989* | Brighton | WTA 250 | R32 | Carpet | Jana Novotna | 6-4 6-2 | Lori Mcneil | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lori Mcneil | #867 | #9 | 303 | 2,032 | 377 | 273 | 58.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 11 |
| Jana Novotna | #18 | #2 | 5,063 | 2,224 | 504 | 198 | 71.8% | 1 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 13 | 24 |
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 | Lori Mcneil | Jana Novotna | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 1980 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1981 | 2–0 | 100.0% | — | 1,520 | 0 | 1 | 1986 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #171 | 1,466 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1982 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,503 | 0 | 1 | 1987 | 21–17 | 55.3% | #47 | 1,752 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1983 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,569 | 0 | 1 | 1988 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #35 | 1,757 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 1984 | 7–11 | 38.9% | #97 | 1,609 | 0 | 1 | 1989 | 45–17 | 72.6% | #11 | 1,962 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 1985 | 13–23 | 36.1% | #93 | 1,587 | 0 | 1 | 1990 | 40–16 | 71.4% | #13 | 2,016 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 1986 | 42–22 | 65.6% | #14 | 1,884 | 0 | 3 | 1991 | 45–15 | 75.0% | #7 | 2,072 | 0 | 5 |
| 23 | 1987 | 54–24 | 69.2% | #11 | 2,017 | 0 | 3 | 1992 | 36–17 | 67.9% | #10 | 2,089 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 1988 | 46–20 | 69.7% | #13 | 1,904 | 0 | 5 | 1993 | 46–15 | 75.4% | #6 | 2,103 | 0 | 7 |
| 25 | 1989 | 24–22 | 52.2% | #36 | 1,760 | 0 | 6 | 1994 | 43–11 | 79.6% | #4 | 2,141 | 0 | 10 |
| 26 | 1990 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #52 | 1,696 | 0 | 6 | 1995 | 30–12 | 71.4% | #11 | 2,031 | 0 | 11 |
| 27 | 1991 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #19 | 1,870 | 0 | 8 | 1996 | 47–12 | 79.7% | #5 | 2,209 | 0 | 15 |
| 28 | 1992 | 37–20 | 64.9% | #15 | 1,962 | 0 | 9 | 1997 | 52–15 | 77.6% | #2 | 2,173 | 0 | 19 |
| 29 | 1993 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #25 | 1,898 | 0 | 10 | 1998 | 50–14 | 78.1% | #3 | 2,129 | 1 | 23 |
| 30 | 1994 | 26–15 | 63.4% | #17 | 1,871 | 0 | 11 | 1999 | 26–15 | 63.4% | #18 | 1,924 | 1 | 24 |
| 31 | 1995 | 19–19 | 50.0% | #34 | 1,804 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 1996 | 8–14 | 36.4% | #83 | 1,726 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 1997 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #301 | 1,655 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 1998 | 8–6 | 57.1% | #91 | 1,717 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 1999 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #869 | 1,669 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |