H2H data updated: 2026-07-20 02:15 UTC
Virginia Wade vs Fay Toyne H2H: 1-3
Fay Toyne holds a 3–1 lead over Virginia Wade in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Fay Toyne leads 3–0 on clay, while Virginia Wade leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Fay Toyne won the 1970 Hamburg fourth round 6-3 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.
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 14, 1970* | Hamburg | WTA 250 | R16 | Clay | Fay Toyne | 6-3 6-1 | Virginia Wade | Match data |
| Jun 27, 1969* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R64 | Grass | Virginia Wade | 6-1 6-2 | Fay Toyne | Match data |
| May 9, 1968* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R32 | Clay | Fay Toyne | 6-3 3-6 6-3 | Virginia Wade | Match data |
| Apr 23, 1968* | Chingford | WTA 250 | F | Clay | Fay Toyne | 6-4 8-6 | Virginia Wade | 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 Wade | #138 | #40 | — | 2,313 | 865 | 314 | 73.4% | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 51 | 58 |
| Fay Toyne | — | — | — | 1,716 | 73 | 66 | 52.5% | 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 | Virginia Wade | Fay Toyne | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 22 | 1968 | 85–19 | 81.7% | — | 1,945 | 1 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 23 | 1969 | 82–18 | 82.0% | — | 2,118 | 1 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 1970 | 69–22 | 75.8% | — | 2,080 | 1 | 21 | 1968 | 36–16 | 69.2% | — | 1,674 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 1971 | 64–16 | 80.0% | — | 2,161 | 1 | 29 | 1969 | 20–15 | 57.1% | — | 1,676 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 1972 | 75–23 | 76.5% | — | 2,151 | 2 | 34 | 1970 | 13–14 | 48.1% | — | 1,689 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 1973 | 63–16 | 79.7% | — | 2,158 | 2 | 40 | 1971 | 2–12 | 14.3% | — | 1,553 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 1974 | 60–16 | 78.9% | — | 2,189 | 2 | 45 | 1972 | 2–6 | 25.0% | — | 1,516 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 1975 | 65–14 | 82.3% | — | 2,313 | 2 | 51 | 1973 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,482 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 1976 | 48–17 | 73.8% | — | 2,256 | 2 | 53 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 1977 | 50–18 | 73.5% | — | 2,274 | 3 | 55 | 1975 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,466 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | 1978 | 69–25 | 73.4% | — | 2,240 | 3 | 58 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 1979 | 51–26 | 66.2% | — | 2,088 | 3 | 58 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 1980 | 30–21 | 58.8% | — | 1,885 | 3 | 58 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 1981 | 25–21 | 54.3% | — | 1,824 | 3 | 58 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 1982 | 6–13 | 31.6% | — | 1,749 | 3 | 58 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 1983 | 10–9 | 52.6% | — | 1,788 | 3 | 58 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 1984 | 6–11 | 35.3% | #61 | 1,728 | 3 | 58 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 39 | 1985 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #62 | 1,712 | 3 | 58 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |