H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Natasha Zvereva vs Jo Durie H2H: 1-0
Natasha Zvereva holds a 1–0 lead over Jo Durie in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Natasha Zvereva leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Natasha Zvereva won the 1990 Toronto fourth round 6-4 6-2.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
BLR
Age 55
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
GBR
Age 65
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 30, 1990 | Toronto | WTA 1000 | R16 | Hard | Natasha Zvereva | 6-4 6-2 | Jo Durie | Match data |
Career Comparison
| Player | Current | Peak | Pts | Elo | W | L | Win % | GS | 1000 | Finals | 500 | 250 | Titles |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Natasha Zvereva | #201 | #5 | 1,820 | 2,073 | 388 | 232 | 62.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
| 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.
| Age | Natasha Zvereva | Jo Durie | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1975 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | 1986 | 4–2 | 66.7% | #94 | 1,575 | 0 | 0 | 1976 | 5–6 | 45.5% | — | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 1987 | 21–11 | 65.6% | #19 | 1,831 | 0 | 0 | 1977 | 11–7 | 61.1% | — | 1,601 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1988 | 38–17 | 69.1% | #7 | 1,991 | 0 | 0 | 1978 | 18–10 | 64.3% | — | 1,618 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | 1989 | 23–17 | 57.5% | #27 | 1,802 | 0 | 0 | 1979 | 15–8 | 65.2% | — | 1,713 | 0 | 3 |
| 19 | 1990 | 38–15 | 71.7% | #12 | 1,955 | 0 | 2 | 1980 | 21–14 | 60.0% | — | 1,734 | 0 | 4 |
| 20 | 1991 | 29–18 | 61.7% | #21 | 1,912 | 0 | 2 | 1981 | 30–14 | 68.2% | — | 1,860 | 0 | 7 |
| 21 | 1992 | 32–19 | 62.7% | #23 | 1,977 | 0 | 2 | 1982 | 25–20 | 55.6% | — | 1,841 | 0 | 7 |
| 22 | 1993 | 37–19 | 66.1% | #19 | 1,972 | 0 | 2 | 1983 | 47–18 | 72.3% | — | 2,093 | 0 | 9 |
| 23 | 1994 | 29–12 | 70.7% | #10 | 1,978 | 0 | 3 | 1984 | 16–15 | 51.6% | #24 | 1,889 | 0 | 9 |
| 24 | 1995 | 31–17 | 64.6% | #14 | 1,971 | 0 | 3 | 1985 | 17–19 | 47.2% | #26 | 1,799 | 0 | 9 |
| 25 | 1996 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #57 | 1,877 | 0 | 3 | 1986 | 24–17 | 58.5% | #24 | 1,842 | 0 | 9 |
| 26 | 1997 | 25–20 | 55.6% | #25 | 1,902 | 0 | 3 | 1987 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #73 | 1,741 | 0 | 9 |
| 27 | 1998 | 35–21 | 62.5% | #16 | 1,932 | 0 | 4 | 1988 | 19–19 | 50.0% | #60 | 1,704 | 0 | 9 |
| 28 | 1999 | 24–19 | 55.8% | #27 | 1,824 | 0 | 5 | 1989 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #117 | 1,621 | 0 | 9 |
| 29 | 2000 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #78 | 1,759 | 0 | 5 | 1990 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #64 | 1,674 | 0 | 9 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1991 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #62 | 1,717 | 0 | 9 |
| 31 | 2002 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,733 | 0 | 5 | 1992 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #59 | 1,693 | 0 | 9 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1993 | 4–12 | 25.0% | #192 | 1,562 | 0 | 9 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1994 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #348 | 1,554 | 0 | 9 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #292 | 1,547 | 0 | 9 |