H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Virginia Ruzici vs Lea Pericoli H2H: 1-0
Virginia Ruzici holds a 1–0 lead over Lea Pericoli in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Virginia Ruzici leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Virginia Ruzici won the 1975 Rome second round 7-6 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
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
ITA
Right-Handed
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 28, 1975* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Virginia Ruzici | 7-6 6-1 | Lea Pericoli | 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 |
| 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 | Virginia Ruzici | Lea Pericoli | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 1972 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1973 | 4–9 | 30.8% | — | 1,494 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1974 | 20–18 | 52.6% | — | 1,651 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1975 | 7–7 | 50.0% | — | 1,687 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 1976 | 30–20 | 60.0% | — | 1,796 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 1977 | 23–21 | 52.3% | — | 1,918 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 23 | 1978 | 59–26 | 69.4% | — | 2,093 | 1 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 1979 | 52–27 | 65.8% | — | 1,966 | 1 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 25 | 1980 | 73–26 | 73.7% | — | 2,027 | 1 | 12 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 26 | 1981 | 61–30 | 67.0% | — | 1,920 | 1 | 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 1982 | 49–21 | 70.0% | — | 1,982 | 1 | 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 1983 | 27–17 | 61.4% | — | 1,905 | 1 | 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 1984 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #44 | 1,780 | 1 | 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 1985 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #48 | 1,786 | 1 | 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 1986 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #185 | 1,734 | 1 | 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 1987 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #143 | 1,658 | 1 | 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 |