H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Mima Jausovec vs Nancy Richey H2H: 0-2
Nancy Richey holds a 2–0 lead over Mima Jausovec in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Nancy Richey leads 2–0 on carpet. Most recently, Nancy Richey won the 1978 Seattle third round 6-2 7-6.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
SLO
Age 69
Right-Handed
160 cm / 5'3"
H2H
0
–
2
2 main draw meetings
USA
Age 83
Right-Handed
160 cm / 5'3"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 9, 1978* | Seattle | WTA 250 | R32 | Carpet | Nancy Richey | 6-2 7-6 | Mima Jausovec | Match data |
| Feb 13, 1975* | Chicago | WTA 250 | R32 | Carpet | Nancy Richey | 6-2 6-1 | Mima Jausovec | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mima Jausovec | #400 | #23 | 2 | 2,088 | 339 | 246 | 57.9% | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 7 |
| Nancy Richey | — | — | — | 2,236 | 324 | 109 | 74.8% | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 24 | 28 |
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 | Mima Jausovec | Nancy Richey | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1972 | 2–0 | 100.0% | — | 1,533 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1973 | 2–1 | 66.7% | — | 1,560 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1974 | 18–13 | 58.1% | — | 1,790 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1975 | 16–19 | 45.7% | — | 1,804 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1976 | 33–16 | 67.3% | — | 1,996 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1977 | 32–21 | 60.4% | — | 2,008 | 1 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 1978 | 29–19 | 60.4% | — | 1,922 | 1 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 1979 | 32–28 | 53.3% | — | 1,866 | 1 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 23 | 1980 | 34–22 | 60.7% | — | 1,941 | 1 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 1981 | 57–28 | 67.1% | — | 2,010 | 1 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 25 | 1982 | 36–24 | 60.0% | — | 1,861 | 1 | 7 | 1968 | 56–5 | 91.8% | — | 1,887 | 1 | 10 |
| 26 | 1983 | 23–16 | 59.0% | — | 1,873 | 1 | 7 | 1969 | 33–8 | 80.5% | — | 2,031 | 1 | 13 |
| 27 | 1984 | 12–17 | 41.4% | #87 | 1,747 | 1 | 7 | 1970 | 43–8 | 84.3% | — | 2,114 | 1 | 20 |
| 28 | 1985 | 9–12 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,695 | 1 | 7 | 1971 | 29–13 | 69.0% | — | 2,078 | 1 | 20 |
| 29 | 1986 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #184 | 1,673 | 1 | 7 | 1972 | 45–12 | 78.9% | — | 2,128 | 1 | 25 |
| 30 | 1987 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #233 | 1,656 | 1 | 7 | 1973 | 34–13 | 72.3% | — | 2,162 | 1 | 25 |
| 31 | 1988 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #362 | 1,641 | 1 | 7 | 1974 | 25–13 | 65.8% | — | 2,057 | 1 | 25 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1975 | 24–11 | 68.6% | — | 2,080 | 1 | 26 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1976 | 14–10 | 58.3% | — | 2,034 | 1 | 26 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1977 | 15–7 | 68.2% | — | 1,983 | 1 | 28 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1978 | 6–9 | 40.0% | — | 1,902 | 1 | 28 |