H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Pam Shriver vs Jane Preyer H2H: 3-0
Pam Shriver holds a 3–0 lead over Jane Preyer in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Pam Shriver leads 1–0 on carpet and 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Pam Shriver won the 1982 Philadelphia third round 6-3 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.
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 30, 1982* | Philadelphia | WTA 250 | R32 | Carpet | Pam Shriver | 6-3 6-2 | Jane Preyer | Match data |
| Jul 30, 1981* | San Diego | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Pam Shriver | 6-1 6-2 | Jane Preyer | Match data |
| Jun 6, 1981* | Beckenham | WTA 250 | SF | Grass | Pam Shriver | 6-2 6-2 | Jane Preyer | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pam Shriver | #234 | #3 | 163 | 2,302 | 624 | 277 | 69.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 20 | 24 |
| Jane Preyer | — | — | — | 1,686 | 36 | 43 | 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 | Pam Shriver | Jane Preyer | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1978 | 23–8 | 74.2% | — | 1,849 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1979 | 16–16 | 50.0% | — | 1,798 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1980 | 47–21 | 69.1% | — | 2,027 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1981 | 58–25 | 69.9% | — | 2,122 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1982 | 47–19 | 71.2% | — | 2,087 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1983 | 52–15 | 77.6% | — | 2,161 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 1984 | 44–13 | 77.2% | #4 | 2,060 | 0 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 1985 | 54–13 | 80.6% | #4 | 2,117 | 0 | 14 | 1976 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,496 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1986 | 47–15 | 75.8% | #5 | 2,194 | 0 | 16 | 1977 | 1–3 | 25.0% | — | 1,468 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1987 | 60–13 | 82.2% | #4 | 2,254 | 0 | 20 | 1978 | 4–2 | 66.7% | — | 1,527 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1988 | 58–14 | 80.6% | #5 | 2,188 | 0 | 24 | 1979 | 3–3 | 50.0% | — | 1,519 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1989 | 24–14 | 63.2% | #18 | 1,955 | 0 | 24 | 1980 | 8–11 | 42.1% | — | 1,529 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1990 | 8–5 | 61.5% | #66 | 1,911 | 0 | 24 | 1981 | 11–9 | 55.0% | — | 1,645 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 1991 | 21–18 | 53.8% | #37 | 1,822 | 0 | 24 | 1982 | 8–11 | 42.1% | — | 1,635 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 1992 | 25–18 | 58.1% | #30 | 1,858 | 0 | 24 | 1983 | 0–3 | 0.0% | — | 1,585 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 1993 | 14–13 | 51.9% | #38 | 1,819 | 0 | 24 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 1994 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #63 | 1,699 | 0 | 24 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 1995 | 7–11 | 38.9% | #110 | 1,649 | 0 | 24 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 1996 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #189 | 1,611 | 0 | 24 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 1997 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #234 | 1,635 | 0 | 24 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |