H2H data updated: 2026-07-17 14:15 UTC
Lori Mcneil vs Susan Sloane Lundy H2H: 3-2
Lori Mcneil holds a 3–2 lead over Susan Sloane Lundy in their WTA head-to-head. Across 5 main-draw meetings, Lori Mcneil leads 2–1 on hard courts, while Susan Sloane Lundy leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Lori Mcneil won the 1992 Oklahoma third round 6-3 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.
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 20, 1992* | Oklahoma | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Lori Mcneil | 6-3 6-2 | Susan Sloane Lundy | Match data |
| Apr 29, 1989* | Houston | WTA 250 | QF | Clay | Susan Sloane Lundy | 6-2 6-4 | Lori Mcneil | Match data |
| Oct 22, 1988* | Nashville | WTA 250 | SF | Hard | Susan Sloane Lundy | 6-7 6-2 6-1 | Lori Mcneil | Match data |
| Jun 24, 1988* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R64 | Grass | Lori Mcneil | 6-7 6-4 6-4 | Susan Sloane Lundy | Match data |
| Nov 15, 1986* | San Juan | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Lori Mcneil | 7-6 6-3 | Susan Sloane Lundy | 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 |
| Susan Sloane Lundy | — | — | — | 1,884 | 96 | 94 | 50.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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 | Susan Sloane Lundy | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1985 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 1981 | 2–0 | 100.0% | — | 1,520 | 0 | 1 | 1986 | 9–12 | 42.9% | — | 1,595 | 0 | 0 |
| 1982 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,503 | 0 | 1 | 1987 | 10–14 | 41.7% | — | 1,634 | 0 | 0 |
| 1983 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,569 | 0 | 1 | 1988 | 23–14 | 62.2% | — | 1,849 | 0 | 1 |
| 1984 | 7–11 | 38.9% | #97 | 1,609 | 0 | 1 | 1989 | 20–15 | 57.1% | — | 1,756 | 0 | 1 |
| 1985 | 13–23 | 36.1% | #93 | 1,587 | 0 | 1 | 1990 | 22–16 | 57.9% | — | 1,782 | 0 | 1 |
| 1986 | 42–22 | 65.6% | #14 | 1,884 | 0 | 3 | 1991 | 11–15 | 42.3% | — | 1,670 | 0 | 1 |
| 1987 | 54–24 | 69.2% | #11 | 2,017 | 0 | 3 | 1992 | 1–7 | 12.5% | — | 1,592 | 0 | 1 |
| 1988 | 46–20 | 69.7% | #13 | 1,904 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1989 | 24–22 | 52.2% | #36 | 1,760 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1990 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #52 | 1,696 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |