H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Nathalie Herreman vs Laura Garrone H2H: 0-1
Laura Garrone holds a 1–0 lead over Nathalie Herreman in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Laura Garrone leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Laura Garrone won the 1986 Berlin third round 7-6 6-0.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
FRA
Age 60
Left-Handed
164 cm / 5'5"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
ITA
Age 58
Right-Handed
166 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 15, 1986* | Berlin | WTA 500 | R32 | Clay | Laura Garrone | 7-6 6-0 | Nathalie Herreman | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nathalie Herreman | #886 | #42 | 20 | 1,728 | 103 | 154 | 40.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Laura Garrone | #262 | #32 | 90 | 1,726 | 109 | 130 | 45.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Nathalie Herreman | Laura Garrone | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 1982 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,492 | 0 | 0 | 1984 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #234 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1983 | 4–3 | 57.1% | — | 1,548 | 0 | 0 | 1985 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #203 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1984 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #125 | 1,564 | 0 | 0 | 1986 | 22–14 | 61.1% | #38 | 1,679 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1985 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #126 | 1,543 | 0 | 0 | 1987 | 15–17 | 46.9% | #86 | 1,612 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1986 | 16–11 | 59.3% | #42 | 1,718 | 0 | 1 | 1988 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #64 | 1,638 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1987 | 11–20 | 35.5% | #91 | 1,641 | 0 | 1 | 1989 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #87 | 1,608 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1988 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #95 | 1,606 | 0 | 1 | 1990 | 14–15 | 48.3% | #65 | 1,609 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1989 | 8–17 | 32.0% | #134 | 1,568 | 0 | 1 | 1991 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #93 | 1,623 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1990 | 19–20 | 48.7% | #62 | 1,684 | 0 | 1 | 1992 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #156 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1991 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #121 | 1,619 | 0 | 1 | 1993 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #169 | 1,521 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1992 | 6–16 | 27.3% | #183 | 1,556 | 0 | 1 | 1994 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #167 | 1,520 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1993 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #107 | 1,622 | 0 | 1 | 1995 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #194 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 1994 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #181 | 1,584 | 0 | 1 | 1996 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #258 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 1995 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #386 | 1,580 | 0 | 1 | 1997 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #224 | 1,501 | 0 | 0 |