H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Sue Barker vs Renata Tomanova H2H: 5-0
Sue Barker holds a 5–0 lead over Renata Tomanova in their WTA head-to-head. Across 5 main-draw meetings, Sue Barker leads 3–0 on clay and 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Sue Barker won the 1981 Indianapolis fourth round 6-4 6-7 6-4.
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
5
–
0
5 main draw meetings
Age 71
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 7, 1981* | Indianapolis | WTA 250 | R16 | Clay | Sue Barker | 6-4 6-7 6-4 | Renata Tomanova | Match data |
| Nov 25, 1977* | Melbourne | WTA 250 | R16 | Grass | Sue Barker | 6-4 3-6 6-3 | Renata Tomanova | Match data |
| Jan 14, 1977* | Hollywood | WTA 250 | R16 | Carpet | Sue Barker | 7-6 6-4 | Renata Tomanova | Match data |
| Jun 13, 1976* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | F | Clay | Sue Barker | 6-2 0-6 6-2 | Renata Tomanova | Match data |
| May 23, 1976* | Hamburg | WTA 250 | F | Clay | Sue Barker | 6-3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sue Barker | #162 | #57 | — | 2,257 | 381 | 217 | 63.7% | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 18 | 22 |
| Renata Tomanova | — | — | — | 1,940 | 225 | 214 | 51.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 9 |
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 | Renata Tomanova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1970 | 4–4 | 50.0% | — | 1,501 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 1972 | 3–2 | 60.0% | — | 1,543 | 0 | 0 | 1971 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,501 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1973 | 8–6 | 57.1% | — | 1,571 | 0 | 1 | 1972 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,482 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1974 | 40–20 | 66.7% | — | 1,771 | 0 | 6 | 1973 | 20–15 | 57.1% | — | 1,618 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1975 | 50–19 | 72.5% | — | 1,967 | 0 | 11 | 1974 | 21–14 | 60.0% | — | 1,692 | 0 | 4 |
| 20 | 1976 | 64–23 | 73.6% | — | 2,057 | 1 | 14 | 1975 | 23–16 | 59.0% | — | 1,804 | 0 | 6 |
| 21 | 1977 | 51–18 | 73.9% | — | 2,107 | 1 | 16 | 1976 | 28–22 | 56.0% | — | 1,840 | 0 | 8 |
| 22 | 1978 | 16–14 | 53.3% | — | 1,922 | 1 | 17 | 1977 | 28–26 | 51.9% | — | 1,854 | 0 | 9 |
| 23 | 1979 | 54–24 | 69.2% | — | 2,017 | 1 | 20 | 1978 | 28–25 | 52.8% | — | 1,756 | 0 | 9 |
| 24 | 1980 | 34–18 | 65.4% | — | 1,931 | 1 | 20 | 1979 | 21–26 | 44.7% | — | 1,692 | 0 | 9 |
| 25 | 1981 | 28–18 | 60.9% | — | 1,959 | 1 | 21 | 1980 | 22–22 | 50.0% | — | 1,679 | 0 | 9 |
| 26 | 1982 | 11–19 | 36.7% | — | 1,803 | 1 | 21 | 1981 | 18–16 | 52.9% | — | 1,682 | 0 | 9 |
| 27 | 1983 | 18–20 | 47.4% | — | 1,750 | 1 | 22 | 1982 | 9–12 | 42.9% | — | 1,694 | 0 | 9 |
| 28 | 1984 | 2–14 | 12.5% | #57 | 1,556 | 1 | 22 | 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 |