H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Sue Barker vs Mareen Louie Harper H2H: 2-1
Sue Barker holds a 2–1 lead over Mareen Louie Harper in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Sue Barker leads 2–0 on hard courts, while Mareen Louie Harper leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Sue Barker won the 1982 Tampa third round 6-0 6-3.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
GBR
Age 70
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
Age 65
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 14, 1982* | Tampa | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Sue Barker | 6-0 6-3 | Mareen Louie Harper | Match data |
| Jan 21, 1982* | Seattle | WTA 250 | R32 | Carpet | Mareen Louie Harper | 6-2 6-3 | Sue Barker | Match data |
| Jan 25, 1979* | Hollywood | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Sue Barker | 4-6 6-4 6-4 | Mareen Louie Harper | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sue Barker | #162 | #57 | — | 2,257 | 381 | 217 | 63.7% | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 18 | 22 |
| Mareen Louie Harper | — | — | — | 1,911 | 177 | 239 | 42.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
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 | Sue Barker | Mareen Louie Harper | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 13 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1974 | 2–1 | 66.7% | — | 1,523 | 0 | 0 |
| 14 | 1970 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,513 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 15 | 1971 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,526 | 0 | 0 | 1976 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,521 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 1972 | 3–2 | 60.0% | — | 1,543 | 0 | 0 | 1977 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,519 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1973 | 8–6 | 57.1% | — | 1,571 | 0 | 1 | 1978 | 7–12 | 36.8% | — | 1,588 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1974 | 40–20 | 66.7% | — | 1,771 | 0 | 6 | 1979 | 4–13 | 23.5% | — | 1,567 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1975 | 50–19 | 72.5% | — | 1,967 | 0 | 11 | 1980 | 22–23 | 48.9% | — | 1,715 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1976 | 64–23 | 73.6% | — | 2,057 | 1 | 14 | 1981 | 16–20 | 44.4% | — | 1,743 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1977 | 51–18 | 73.9% | — | 2,107 | 1 | 16 | 1982 | 9–18 | 33.3% | — | 1,654 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1978 | 16–14 | 53.3% | — | 1,922 | 1 | 17 | 1983 | 7–10 | 41.2% | — | 1,670 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1979 | 54–24 | 69.2% | — | 2,017 | 1 | 20 | 1984 | 18–17 | 51.4% | — | 1,733 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 1980 | 34–18 | 65.4% | — | 1,931 | 1 | 20 | 1985 | 29–18 | 61.7% | — | 1,777 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 1981 | 28–18 | 60.9% | — | 1,959 | 1 | 21 | 1986 | 12–17 | 41.4% | — | 1,680 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 1982 | 11–19 | 36.7% | — | 1,803 | 1 | 21 | 1987 | 9–16 | 36.0% | — | 1,625 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 1983 | 18–20 | 47.4% | — | 1,750 | 1 | 22 | 1988 | 12–17 | 41.4% | — | 1,614 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 1984 | 2–14 | 12.5% | #57 | 1,556 | 1 | 22 | 1989 | 6–14 | 30.0% | — | 1,577 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1990 | 10–15 | 40.0% | — | 1,591 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1991 | 12–16 | 42.9% | — | 1,615 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1992 | 1–7 | 12.5% | — | 1,546 | 0 | 2 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1994 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,537 | 0 | 2 |