H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Virginia Ruzici vs Kate Latham H2H: 3-0
Virginia Ruzici holds a 3–0 lead over Kate Latham in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Virginia Ruzici leads 2–0 on clay and 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Virginia Ruzici won the 1984 Berlin second 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.
ROU
Age 71
Right-Handed
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H
3
–
0
3 main draw meetings
Age 73
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 16, 1984* | Berlin | WTA 500 | R64 | Clay | Virginia Ruzici | 6-2 6-1 | Kate Latham | Match data |
| Apr 7, 1982* | Hilton Head | WTA 250 | R64 | Clay | Virginia Ruzici | 6-3 6-1 | Kate Latham | Match data |
| Jan 12, 1979* | Oakland | WTA 250 | R16 | Carpet | Virginia Ruzici | 6-3 6-3 | Kate Latham | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Virginia Ruzici | #264 | #16 | 5 | 2,121 | 458 | 274 | 62.6% | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 18 | 20 |
| Kate Latham | — | — | — | 1,866 | 198 | 202 | 49.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
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 | Virginia Ruzici | Kate Latham | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1969 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1972 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 1970 | 1–3 | 25.0% | — | 1,476 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1973 | 4–9 | 30.8% | — | 1,494 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1974 | 20–18 | 52.6% | — | 1,651 | 0 | 2 | 1972 | 3–3 | 50.0% | — | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1975 | 7–7 | 50.0% | — | 1,687 | 0 | 3 | 1973 | 6–7 | 46.2% | — | 1,587 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1976 | 30–20 | 60.0% | — | 1,796 | 0 | 3 | 1974 | 40–16 | 71.4% | — | 1,844 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 1977 | 23–21 | 52.3% | — | 1,918 | 0 | 4 | 1975 | 15–20 | 42.9% | — | 1,690 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 1978 | 59–26 | 69.4% | — | 2,093 | 1 | 8 | 1976 | 4–2 | 66.7% | — | 1,680 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 1979 | 52–27 | 65.8% | — | 1,966 | 1 | 8 | 1977 | 15–12 | 55.6% | — | 1,755 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 1980 | 73–26 | 73.7% | — | 2,027 | 1 | 12 | 1978 | 13–17 | 43.3% | — | 1,661 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 1981 | 61–30 | 67.0% | — | 1,920 | 1 | 14 | 1979 | 21–23 | 47.7% | — | 1,848 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 1982 | 49–21 | 70.0% | — | 1,982 | 1 | 18 | 1980 | 23–22 | 51.1% | — | 1,750 | 0 | 4 |
| 28 | 1983 | 27–17 | 61.4% | — | 1,905 | 1 | 19 | 1981 | 21–20 | 51.2% | — | 1,774 | 0 | 5 |
| 29 | 1984 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #44 | 1,780 | 1 | 19 | 1982 | 24–28 | 46.2% | — | 1,688 | 0 | 5 |
| 30 | 1985 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #48 | 1,786 | 1 | 20 | 1983 | 9–16 | 36.0% | — | 1,625 | 0 | 6 |
| 31 | 1986 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #185 | 1,734 | 1 | 20 | 1984 | 0–11 | 0.0% | — | 1,494 | 0 | 6 |
| 32 | 1987 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #143 | 1,658 | 1 | 20 | 1985 | 3–1 | 75.0% | — | 1,528 | 0 | 6 |