H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Sue Barker vs Mima Jausovec H2H: 4-1
Sue Barker holds a 4–1 lead over Mima Jausovec in their WTA head-to-head. Across 5 main-draw meetings, Sue Barker leads 3–1 on carpet and 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Sue Barker won the 1981 Brighton final 4-6 6-1 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.
GBR
Age 70
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H
4
–
1
5 main draw meetings
SLO
Age 69
Right-Handed
160 cm / 5'3"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 25, 1981* | Brighton | WTA 250 | F | Carpet | Sue Barker | 4-6 6-1 6-1 | Mima Jausovec | Match data |
| Feb 20, 1981* | Houston | WTA 250 | R16 | Carpet | Mima Jausovec | 6-7 6-0 6-4 | Sue Barker | Match data |
| Feb 8, 1980* | Los Angeles | WTA 500 | R16 | Carpet | Sue Barker | 6-3 7-5 | Mima Jausovec | Match data |
| May 22, 1976* | Hamburg | WTA 250 | SF | Clay | Sue Barker | 6-4 6-2 | Mima Jausovec | Match data |
| Nov 1, 1974* | Cardiff | WTA 250 | R16 | Carpet | Sue Barker | 7-6(3) 3-6 6-2 | Mima Jausovec | 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 |
| Mima Jausovec | #400 | #23 | 2 | 2,088 | 339 | 246 | 57.9% | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 7 |
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 | Mima Jausovec | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | 1970 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,513 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 15 | 1971 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,526 | 0 | 0 | 1972 | 2–0 | 100.0% | — | 1,533 | 0 | 1 |
| 16 | 1972 | 3–2 | 60.0% | — | 1,543 | 0 | 0 | 1973 | 2–1 | 66.7% | — | 1,560 | 0 | 1 |
| 17 | 1973 | 8–6 | 57.1% | — | 1,571 | 0 | 1 | 1974 | 18–13 | 58.1% | — | 1,790 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | 1974 | 40–20 | 66.7% | — | 1,771 | 0 | 6 | 1975 | 16–19 | 45.7% | — | 1,804 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 1975 | 50–19 | 72.5% | — | 1,967 | 0 | 11 | 1976 | 33–16 | 67.3% | — | 1,996 | 0 | 4 |
| 20 | 1976 | 64–23 | 73.6% | — | 2,057 | 1 | 14 | 1977 | 32–21 | 60.4% | — | 2,008 | 1 | 5 |
| 21 | 1977 | 51–18 | 73.9% | — | 2,107 | 1 | 16 | 1978 | 29–19 | 60.4% | — | 1,922 | 1 | 6 |
| 22 | 1978 | 16–14 | 53.3% | — | 1,922 | 1 | 17 | 1979 | 32–28 | 53.3% | — | 1,866 | 1 | 6 |
| 23 | 1979 | 54–24 | 69.2% | — | 2,017 | 1 | 20 | 1980 | 34–22 | 60.7% | — | 1,941 | 1 | 6 |
| 24 | 1980 | 34–18 | 65.4% | — | 1,931 | 1 | 20 | 1981 | 57–28 | 67.1% | — | 2,010 | 1 | 6 |
| 25 | 1981 | 28–18 | 60.9% | — | 1,959 | 1 | 21 | 1982 | 36–24 | 60.0% | — | 1,861 | 1 | 7 |
| 26 | 1982 | 11–19 | 36.7% | — | 1,803 | 1 | 21 | 1983 | 23–16 | 59.0% | — | 1,873 | 1 | 7 |
| 27 | 1983 | 18–20 | 47.4% | — | 1,750 | 1 | 22 | 1984 | 12–17 | 41.4% | #87 | 1,747 | 1 | 7 |
| 28 | 1984 | 2–14 | 12.5% | #57 | 1,556 | 1 | 22 | 1985 | 9–12 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,695 | 1 | 7 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1986 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #184 | 1,673 | 1 | 7 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1987 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #233 | 1,656 | 1 | 7 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1988 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #362 | 1,641 | 1 | 7 |