H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Lori Mcneil vs Maria Strandlund Tomsvik H2H: 3-1
Lori Mcneil holds a 3–1 lead over Maria Strandlund Tomsvik in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while Lori Mcneil leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Lori Mcneil won the 1995 Oakland third round 6-4 6-1.
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
3
–
1
4 main draw meetings
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 2, 1995* | Oakland | WTA 250 | R32 | Carpet | Lori Mcneil | 6-4 6-1 | Maria Strandlund Tomsvik | Match data |
| May 19, 1994* | Strasbourg | WTA 500 | R32 | Clay | Lori Mcneil | 6-2 7-6 | Maria Strandlund Tomsvik | Match data |
| Oct 26, 1990* | Dorado | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Maria Strandlund Tomsvik | 7-5 6-7 6-1 | Lori Mcneil | Match data |
| Mar 17, 1990* | Key Biscayne | WTA 1000 | R128 | Hard | Lori Mcneil | 6-3 7-5 | Maria Strandlund Tomsvik | 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 |
| Maria Strandlund Tomsvik | — | — | — | 1,626 | 42 | 77 | 35.3% | 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.
| Lori Mcneil | Maria Strandlund Tomsvik | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 1980 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | 1987 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,504 | 0 | 0 |
| 1981 | 2–0 | 100.0% | — | 1,520 | 0 | 1 | 1988 | 6–7 | 46.2% | — | 1,577 | 0 | 0 |
| 1982 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,503 | 0 | 1 | 1989 | 10–14 | 41.7% | — | 1,612 | 0 | 0 |
| 1983 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,569 | 0 | 1 | 1990 | 7–16 | 30.4% | — | 1,589 | 0 | 0 |
| 1984 | 7–11 | 38.9% | #97 | 1,609 | 0 | 1 | 1991 | 6–12 | 33.3% | — | 1,554 | 0 | 0 |
| 1985 | 13–23 | 36.1% | #93 | 1,587 | 0 | 1 | 1992 | 0–3 | 0.0% | — | 1,520 | 0 | 0 |
| 1986 | 42–22 | 65.6% | #14 | 1,884 | 0 | 3 | 1993 | 2–3 | 40.0% | — | 1,560 | 0 | 0 |
| 1987 | 54–24 | 69.2% | #11 | 2,017 | 0 | 3 | 1994 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,547 | 0 | 0 |
| 1988 | 46–20 | 69.7% | #13 | 1,904 | 0 | 5 | 1995 | 8–13 | 38.1% | — | 1,545 | 0 | 0 |
| 1989 | 24–22 | 52.2% | #36 | 1,760 | 0 | 6 | 1996 | 2–5 | 28.6% | — | 1,527 | 0 | 0 |
| 1990 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #52 | 1,696 | 0 | 6 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,516 | 0 | 0 |
| 1991 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #19 | 1,870 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1992 | 37–20 | 64.9% | #15 | 1,962 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1993 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #25 | 1,898 | 0 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1994 | 26–15 | 63.4% | #17 | 1,871 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1995 | 19–19 | 50.0% | #34 | 1,804 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1996 | 8–14 | 36.4% | #83 | 1,726 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1997 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #301 | 1,655 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1998 | 8–6 | 57.1% | #91 | 1,717 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1999 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #869 | 1,669 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |