H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Pam Shriver vs Louise Field H2H: 1-0
Pam Shriver holds a 1–0 lead over Louise Field in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Pam Shriver leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Pam Shriver won the 1989 Moscow third round 6-2 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.
USA
Age 64
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
AUS
Age 59
Right-Handed
198 cm / 6'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 12, 1989* | Moscow | WTA 500 | R32 | Carpet | Pam Shriver | 6-2 6-2 | Louise Field | 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 |
| Louise Field | #752 | #96 | 12 | 1,579 | 58 | 121 | 32.4% | 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 | Louise Field | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1982 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 1979 | 16–16 | 50.0% | — | 1,798 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1980 | 47–21 | 69.1% | — | 2,027 | 0 | 2 | 1984 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #248 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1981 | 58–25 | 69.9% | — | 2,122 | 0 | 4 | 1985 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #106 | 1,518 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1982 | 47–19 | 71.2% | — | 2,087 | 0 | 5 | 1986 | 4–10 | 28.6% | #157 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1983 | 52–15 | 77.6% | — | 2,161 | 0 | 8 | 1987 | 11–17 | 39.3% | #113 | 1,470 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1984 | 44–13 | 77.2% | #4 | 2,060 | 0 | 10 | 1988 | 4–13 | 23.5% | #163 | 1,421 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1985 | 54–13 | 80.6% | #4 | 2,117 | 0 | 14 | 1989 | 12–20 | 37.5% | #100 | 1,545 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1986 | 47–15 | 75.8% | #5 | 2,194 | 0 | 16 | 1990 | 9–17 | 34.6% | #125 | 1,523 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1987 | 60–13 | 82.2% | #4 | 2,254 | 0 | 20 | 1991 | 3–14 | 17.6% | #193 | 1,436 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1988 | 58–14 | 80.6% | #5 | 2,188 | 0 | 24 | 1992 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #170 | 1,450 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1989 | 24–14 | 63.2% | #18 | 1,955 | 0 | 24 | 1993 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #175 | 1,471 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1990 | 8–5 | 61.5% | #66 | 1,911 | 0 | 24 | 1994 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #197 | 1,477 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 1991 | 21–18 | 53.8% | #37 | 1,822 | 0 | 24 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 1992 | 25–18 | 58.1% | #30 | 1,858 | 0 | 24 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |