H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Mary Lou Piatek vs Jo Durie H2H: 1-1
Mary Lou Piatek and Jo Durie are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on carpet. Most recently, Jo Durie won the 1984 East Hanover 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 24, 1984* | East Hanover | WTA 250 | R16 | Carpet | Jo Durie | 6-2 6-1 | Mary Lou Piatek | Match data |
| Jan 24, 1980* | Chicago | WTA 250 | R32 | Carpet | Mary Lou Piatek | 6-3 6-2 | Jo Durie | 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 Lou Piatek | — | — | — | 1,936 | 153 | 206 | 42.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Jo Durie | #302 | #5 | 31 | 2,099 | 314 | 264 | 54.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 8 | 9 |
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.
| Mary Lou Piatek | Jo Durie | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 1978 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,499 | 0 | 0 | 1975 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 1979 | 3–5 | 37.5% | — | 1,546 | 0 | 0 | 1976 | 5–6 | 45.5% | — | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 1980 | 16–12 | 57.1% | — | 1,737 | 0 | 0 | 1977 | 11–7 | 61.1% | — | 1,601 | 0 | 0 |
| 1981 | 30–22 | 57.7% | — | 1,873 | 0 | 1 | 1978 | 18–10 | 64.3% | — | 1,618 | 0 | 1 |
| 1982 | 18–21 | 46.2% | — | 1,792 | 0 | 1 | 1979 | 15–8 | 65.2% | — | 1,713 | 0 | 3 |
| 1983 | 12–20 | 37.5% | — | 1,721 | 0 | 1 | 1980 | 21–14 | 60.0% | — | 1,734 | 0 | 4 |
| 1984 | 18–20 | 47.4% | — | 1,703 | 0 | 2 | 1981 | 30–14 | 68.2% | — | 1,860 | 0 | 7 |
| 1985 | 14–18 | 43.8% | — | 1,678 | 0 | 2 | 1982 | 25–20 | 55.6% | — | 1,841 | 0 | 7 |
| 1986 | 8–15 | 34.8% | — | 1,619 | 0 | 2 | 1983 | 47–18 | 72.3% | — | 2,093 | 0 | 9 |
| 1987 | 6–12 | 33.3% | — | 1,594 | 0 | 2 | 1984 | 16–15 | 51.6% | #24 | 1,889 | 0 | 9 |
| 1988 | 6–16 | 27.3% | — | 1,542 | 0 | 2 | 1985 | 17–19 | 47.2% | #26 | 1,799 | 0 | 9 |
| 1989 | 7–15 | 31.8% | — | 1,593 | 0 | 2 | 1986 | 24–17 | 58.5% | #24 | 1,842 | 0 | 9 |
| 1990 | 8–11 | 42.1% | — | 1,612 | 0 | 2 | 1987 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #73 | 1,741 | 0 | 9 |
| 1991 | 5–8 | 38.5% | — | 1,630 | 0 | 2 | 1988 | 19–19 | 50.0% | #60 | 1,704 | 0 | 9 |
| 1992 | 1–8 | 11.1% | — | 1,560 | 0 | 2 | 1989 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #117 | 1,621 | 0 | 9 |
| 1993 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,555 | 0 | 2 | 1990 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #64 | 1,674 | 0 | 9 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1991 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #62 | 1,717 | 0 | 9 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1992 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #59 | 1,693 | 0 | 9 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1993 | 4–12 | 25.0% | #192 | 1,562 | 0 | 9 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1994 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #348 | 1,554 | 0 | 9 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #292 | 1,547 | 0 | 9 |