H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Mary Lou Piatek vs Leigh Anne Thompson H2H: 2-1
Mary Lou Piatek holds a 2–1 lead over Leigh Anne Thompson in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Mary Lou Piatek leads 1–0 on carpet, while Leigh Anne Thompson leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Leigh Anne Thompson won the 1986 Indianapolis second round 6-4 6-4.
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 29, 1986* | Indianapolis | WTA 250 | R64 | Clay | Leigh Anne Thompson | 6-4 6-4 | Mary Lou Piatek | Match data |
| Mar 3, 1983* | Palm Springs | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Mary Lou Piatek | 5-7 6-1 6-1 | Leigh Anne Thompson | Match data |
| Feb 4, 1982* | Detroit | WTA 250 | R32 | Carpet | Mary Lou Piatek | 6-2 1-6 6-2 | Leigh Anne Thompson | 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 |
| Leigh Anne Thompson | — | — | — | 1,793 | 42 | 73 | 36.5% | 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.
| Mary Lou Piatek | Leigh Anne Thompson | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1981 | 4–5 | 44.4% | — | 1,542 | 0 | 0 |
| 1979 | 3–5 | 37.5% | — | 1,546 | 0 | 0 | 1982 | 20–23 | 46.5% | — | 1,766 | 0 | 1 |
| 1980 | 16–12 | 57.1% | — | 1,737 | 0 | 0 | 1983 | 7–17 | 29.2% | — | 1,705 | 0 | 1 |
| 1981 | 30–22 | 57.7% | — | 1,873 | 0 | 1 | 1984 | 0–8 | 0.0% | — | 1,582 | 0 | 1 |
| 1982 | 18–21 | 46.2% | — | 1,792 | 0 | 1 | 1985 | 6–11 | 35.3% | — | 1,590 | 0 | 1 |
| 1983 | 12–20 | 37.5% | — | 1,721 | 0 | 1 | 1986 | 5–9 | 35.7% | — | 1,553 | 0 | 1 |
| 1984 | 18–20 | 47.4% | — | 1,703 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1985 | 14–18 | 43.8% | — | 1,678 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1986 | 8–15 | 34.8% | — | 1,619 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1987 | 6–12 | 33.3% | — | 1,594 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1988 | 6–16 | 27.3% | — | 1,542 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1989 | 7–15 | 31.8% | — | 1,593 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1990 | 8–11 | 42.1% | — | 1,612 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1991 | 5–8 | 38.5% | — | 1,630 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1992 | 1–8 | 11.1% | — | 1,560 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1993 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,555 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |