H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Mary Lou Piatek vs Yvonne Vermaak H2H: 2-3
Yvonne Vermaak holds a 3–2 lead over Mary Lou Piatek in their WTA head-to-head. Across 5 main-draw meetings, Yvonne Vermaak leads 2–1 on carpet, while Mary Lou Piatek leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Yvonne Vermaak won the 1982 Eastbourne third round 7-5 7-5.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 1982* | Eastbourne | WTA 250 | R32 | Grass | Yvonne Vermaak | 7-5 7-5 | Mary Lou Piatek | Match data |
| Mar 19, 1982* | Boston | WTA 250 | R16 | Carpet | Yvonne Vermaak | 3-6 6-4 6-2 | Mary Lou Piatek | Match data |
| Mar 5, 1982* | Los Angeles | WTA 500 | R16 | Carpet | Yvonne Vermaak | 6-1 6-2 | Mary Lou Piatek | Match data |
| Aug 5, 1981* | Indianapolis | WTA 250 | R64 | Clay | Mary Lou Piatek | 1-6 7-6 6-2 | Yvonne Vermaak | Match data |
| Jan 22, 1981* | Cincinnati | WTA 1000 | R32 | Carpet | Mary Lou Piatek | 6-1 6-3 | Yvonne Vermaak | 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 |
| Yvonne Vermaak | #558 | #38 | 10 | 1,891 | 239 | 249 | 49.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
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 | Yvonne Vermaak | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1973 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,495 | 0 | 0 |
| 1979 | 3–5 | 37.5% | — | 1,546 | 0 | 0 | 1974 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 1980 | 16–12 | 57.1% | — | 1,737 | 0 | 0 | 1975 | 15–12 | 55.6% | — | 1,599 | 0 | 0 |
| 1981 | 30–22 | 57.7% | — | 1,873 | 0 | 1 | 1976 | 8–10 | 44.4% | — | 1,607 | 0 | 1 |
| 1982 | 18–21 | 46.2% | — | 1,792 | 0 | 1 | 1977 | 20–14 | 58.8% | — | 1,766 | 0 | 2 |
| 1983 | 12–20 | 37.5% | — | 1,721 | 0 | 1 | 1978 | 29–23 | 55.8% | — | 1,797 | 0 | 2 |
| 1984 | 18–20 | 47.4% | — | 1,703 | 0 | 2 | 1979 | 15–23 | 39.5% | — | 1,781 | 0 | 2 |
| 1985 | 14–18 | 43.8% | — | 1,678 | 0 | 2 | 1980 | 19–18 | 51.4% | — | 1,740 | 0 | 2 |
| 1986 | 8–15 | 34.8% | — | 1,619 | 0 | 2 | 1981 | 19–28 | 40.4% | — | 1,721 | 0 | 2 |
| 1987 | 6–12 | 33.3% | — | 1,594 | 0 | 2 | 1982 | 36–27 | 57.1% | — | 1,819 | 0 | 2 |
| 1988 | 6–16 | 27.3% | — | 1,542 | 0 | 2 | 1983 | 33–26 | 55.9% | — | 1,754 | 0 | 4 |
| 1989 | 7–15 | 31.8% | — | 1,593 | 0 | 2 | 1984 | 29–28 | 50.9% | #41 | 1,801 | 0 | 5 |
| 1990 | 8–11 | 42.1% | — | 1,612 | 0 | 2 | 1985 | 8–21 | 27.6% | #41 | 1,605 | 0 | 5 |
| 1991 | 5–8 | 38.5% | — | 1,630 | 0 | 2 | 1986 | 6–11 | 35.3% | #104 | 1,565 | 0 | 5 |
| 1992 | 1–8 | 11.1% | — | 1,560 | 0 | 2 | 1987 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #201 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 |
| 1993 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,555 | 0 | 2 | 1988 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #287 | 1,542 | 0 | 5 |