H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Mary Ann Eisel vs Lea Pericoli H2H: 0-1
Lea Pericoli holds a 1–0 lead over Mary Ann Eisel in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Lea Pericoli leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Lea Pericoli won the 1969 Rome fourth round 6-2 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.
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 25, 1969* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R16 | Clay | Lea Pericoli | 6-2 6-1 | Mary Ann Eisel | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mary Ann Eisel | — | — | — | 1,945 | 172 | 95 | 64.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 12 |
| Lea Pericoli | — | — | — | 1,764 | 58 | 51 | 53.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
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 | Mary Ann Eisel | Lea Pericoli | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 21 | 1968 | 45–22 | 67.2% | — | 1,774 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 1969 | 54–23 | 70.1% | — | 1,800 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 23 | 1970 | 33–20 | 62.3% | — | 1,769 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 1971 | 26–19 | 57.8% | — | 1,862 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 25 | 1972 | 3–6 | 33.3% | — | 1,825 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 26 | 1973 | 2–1 | 66.7% | — | 1,837 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 1974 | 7–2 | 77.8% | — | 1,860 | 0 | 12 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 1975 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,852 | 0 | 12 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 1976 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,840 | 0 | 12 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1968 | 8–5 | 61.5% | — | 1,560 | 0 | 1 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1969 | 15–7 | 68.2% | — | 1,692 | 0 | 2 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1970 | 11–7 | 61.1% | — | 1,747 | 0 | 3 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1971 | 9–8 | 52.9% | — | 1,746 | 0 | 3 |
| 37 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1972 | 3–6 | 33.3% | — | 1,653 | 0 | 3 |
| 38 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1973 | 4–3 | 57.1% | — | 1,645 | 0 | 3 |
| 39 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1974 | 6–6 | 50.0% | — | 1,641 | 0 | 3 |
| 40 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1975 | 2–7 | 22.2% | — | 1,554 | 0 | 3 |
| 41 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1976 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,529 | 0 | 3 |