H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Renata Tomanova vs Lea Pericoli H2H: 0-1
Lea Pericoli holds a 1–0 lead over Renata Tomanova in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Lea Pericoli leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Lea Pericoli won the 1972 Rome third round 6-2 6-1.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 5, 1972* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R32 | Clay | Lea Pericoli | 6-2 6-1 | Renata Tomanova | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Renata Tomanova | — | — | — | 1,940 | 225 | 214 | 51.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 9 |
| Lea Pericoli | — | — | — | 1,764 | 58 | 51 | 53.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
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 | Renata Tomanova | Lea Pericoli | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1970 | 4–4 | 50.0% | — | 1,501 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1971 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,501 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1972 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,482 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1973 | 20–15 | 57.1% | — | 1,618 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1974 | 21–14 | 60.0% | — | 1,692 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1975 | 23–16 | 59.0% | — | 1,804 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 1976 | 28–22 | 56.0% | — | 1,840 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 1977 | 28–26 | 51.9% | — | 1,854 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 23 | 1978 | 28–25 | 52.8% | — | 1,756 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 1979 | 21–26 | 44.7% | — | 1,692 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 25 | 1980 | 22–22 | 50.0% | — | 1,679 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 26 | 1981 | 18–16 | 52.9% | — | 1,682 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 1982 | 9–12 | 42.9% | — | 1,694 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 1983 | 1–8 | 11.1% | — | 1,598 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 1984 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,582 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 1985 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,570 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 1986 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,533 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1968 | 8–5 | 61.5% | — | 1,560 | 0 | 1 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1969 | 15–7 | 68.2% | — | 1,692 | 0 | 2 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1970 | 11–7 | 61.1% | — | 1,747 | 0 | 3 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1971 | 9–8 | 52.9% | — | 1,746 | 0 | 3 |
| 37 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1972 | 3–6 | 33.3% | — | 1,653 | 0 | 3 |
| 38 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1973 | 4–3 | 57.1% | — | 1,645 | 0 | 3 |
| 39 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1974 | 6–6 | 50.0% | — | 1,641 | 0 | 3 |
| 40 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1975 | 2–7 | 22.2% | — | 1,554 | 0 | 3 |
| 41 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1976 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,529 | 0 | 3 |