H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Mary Ann Eisel vs Virginia Wade H2H: 1-3
Virginia Wade holds a 3–1 lead over Mary Ann Eisel in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Virginia Wade leads 2–1 on carpet and 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Virginia Wade won the 1969 London fourth round 7-5 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.
Age 79
Right-Handed
H2H
1
–
3
4 main draw meetings
GBR
Age 81
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 17, 1969* | London | WTA 250 | R16 | Carpet | Virginia Wade | 7-5 6-2 | Mary Ann Eisel | Match data |
| Aug 21, 1969* | Chestnut Hill | WTA 250 | SF | Grass | Virginia Wade | 10-8 6-8 6-3 | Mary Ann Eisel | Match data |
| Nov 16, 1968* | Queen's Indoors | WTA 250 | QF | Carpet | Virginia Wade | 6-4 3-6 6-2 | Mary Ann Eisel | Match data |
| Oct 27, 1968* | Perth Scotland | WTA 250 | QF | Carpet | Mary Ann Eisel | 7-5 4-6 7-5 | Virginia Wade | 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 |
| Virginia Wade | #138 | #40 | — | 2,313 | 865 | 314 | 73.4% | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 51 | 58 |
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 | Virginia Wade | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1968 | 85–19 | 81.7% | — | 1,945 | 1 | 9 |
| 23 | 1970 | 33–20 | 62.3% | — | 1,769 | 0 | 11 | 1969 | 82–18 | 82.0% | — | 2,118 | 1 | 16 |
| 24 | 1971 | 26–19 | 57.8% | — | 1,862 | 0 | 11 | 1970 | 69–22 | 75.8% | — | 2,080 | 1 | 21 |
| 25 | 1972 | 3–6 | 33.3% | — | 1,825 | 0 | 11 | 1971 | 64–16 | 80.0% | — | 2,161 | 1 | 29 |
| 26 | 1973 | 2–1 | 66.7% | — | 1,837 | 0 | 11 | 1972 | 75–23 | 76.5% | — | 2,151 | 2 | 34 |
| 27 | 1974 | 7–2 | 77.8% | — | 1,860 | 0 | 12 | 1973 | 63–16 | 79.7% | — | 2,158 | 2 | 40 |
| 28 | 1975 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,852 | 0 | 12 | 1974 | 60–16 | 78.9% | — | 2,189 | 2 | 45 |
| 29 | 1976 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,840 | 0 | 12 | 1975 | 65–14 | 82.3% | — | 2,313 | 2 | 51 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1976 | 48–17 | 73.8% | — | 2,256 | 2 | 53 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1977 | 50–18 | 73.5% | — | 2,274 | 3 | 55 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1978 | 69–25 | 73.4% | — | 2,240 | 3 | 58 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1979 | 51–26 | 66.2% | — | 2,088 | 3 | 58 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1980 | 30–21 | 58.8% | — | 1,885 | 3 | 58 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1981 | 25–21 | 54.3% | — | 1,824 | 3 | 58 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1982 | 6–13 | 31.6% | — | 1,749 | 3 | 58 |
| 37 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1983 | 10–9 | 52.6% | — | 1,788 | 3 | 58 |
| 38 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1984 | 6–11 | 35.3% | #61 | 1,728 | 3 | 58 |
| 39 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1985 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #62 | 1,712 | 3 | 58 |