H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Naoko Sato vs Lea Antonoplis H2H: 0-2
Lea Antonoplis holds a 2–0 lead over Naoko Sato in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Lea Antonoplis leads 2–0 on grass. Most recently, Lea Antonoplis won the 1978 Adelaide third round 6-3 4-6 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.
Age 71
H2H
0
–
2
2 main draw meetings
USA
Age 67
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 14, 1978* | Adelaide | WTA 500 | R32 | Grass | Lea Antonoplis | 6-3 4-6 7-5 | Naoko Sato | Match data |
| Nov 25, 1978* | Christchurch | WTA 250 | QF | Grass | Lea Antonoplis | 6-2 6-3 | Naoko Sato | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Naoko Sato | — | — | — | 1,637 | 58 | 91 | 38.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Lea Antonoplis | #599 | #66 | 6 | 1,774 | 126 | 176 | 41.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
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 | Naoko Sato | Lea Antonoplis | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1973 | 8–3 | 72.7% | — | 1,579 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1974 | 2–5 | 28.6% | — | 1,532 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1975 | 3–4 | 42.9% | — | 1,559 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1972 | 2–3 | 40.0% | — | 1,505 | 0 | 0 | 1976 | 7–6 | 53.8% | — | 1,626 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1973 | 4–6 | 40.0% | — | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | 1977 | 6–4 | 60.0% | — | 1,665 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1974 | 7–16 | 30.4% | — | 1,455 | 0 | 0 | 1978 | 17–20 | 45.9% | — | 1,717 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1975 | 7–7 | 50.0% | — | 1,519 | 0 | 0 | 1979 | 11–13 | 45.8% | — | 1,724 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 1976 | 4–8 | 33.3% | — | 1,548 | 0 | 0 | 1980 | 14–7 | 66.7% | — | 1,735 | 0 | 2 |
| 22 | 1977 | 8–12 | 40.0% | — | 1,576 | 0 | 0 | 1981 | 9–11 | 45.0% | — | 1,719 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 1978 | 6–7 | 46.2% | — | 1,602 | 0 | 0 | 1982 | 8–18 | 30.8% | — | 1,632 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 1979 | 8–9 | 47.1% | — | 1,598 | 0 | 0 | 1983 | 6–13 | 31.6% | — | 1,568 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 1980 | 11–10 | 52.4% | — | 1,593 | 0 | 0 | 1984 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #71 | 1,583 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 1981 | 1–6 | 14.3% | — | 1,532 | 0 | 0 | 1985 | 14–21 | 40.0% | #66 | 1,572 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 1982 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,522 | 0 | 0 | 1986 | 2–14 | 12.5% | #176 | 1,460 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 1983 | 0–4 | 0.0% | — | 1,469 | 0 | 0 | 1987 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #163 | 1,413 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 1984 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,460 | 0 | 0 | 1988 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #142 | 1,455 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1989 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #210 | 1,448 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1990 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #599 | 1,432 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | 1987 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,453 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |