H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 14:16 UTC
Winnie Shaw vs Nancy Richey H2H: 0-5
Nancy Richey holds a 5–0 lead over Winnie Shaw in their WTA head-to-head. Across 5 main-draw meetings, Nancy Richey leads 3–0 on grass and 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Nancy Richey won the 1969 Las Vegas fourth round 6-1 6-3.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 13, 1969* | Las Vegas | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Nancy Richey | 6-1 6-3 | Winnie Shaw | Match data |
| Sep 4, 1969* | US Open | Grand Slam | R16 | Grass | Nancy Richey | 3-6 6-4 6-2 | Winnie Shaw | Match data |
| Jun 30, 1968* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R32 | Grass | Nancy Richey | 6-1 6-2 | Winnie Shaw | Match data |
| Jun 22, 1968* | Queen's Club | WTA 250 | SF | Grass | Nancy Richey | 6-4 6-4 | Winnie Shaw | Match data |
| Mar 15, 1968* | Caracas | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Nancy Richey | 8-6 6-4 | Winnie Shaw | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Winnie Shaw | — | — | — | 1,991 | 296 | 144 | 67.3% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 12 | 14 |
| Nancy Richey | — | — | — | 2,236 | 324 | 109 | 74.8% | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 24 | 28 |
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 | Winnie Shaw | Nancy Richey | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 21 | 1968 | 49–28 | 63.6% | — | 1,787 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 1969 | 69–27 | 71.9% | — | 1,907 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 23 | 1970 | 55–26 | 67.9% | — | 1,941 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 1971 | 46–26 | 63.9% | — | 1,855 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 25 | 1972 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,858 | 0 | 11 | 1968 | 56–5 | 91.8% | — | 1,887 | 1 | 10 |
| 26 | 1973 | 2–2 | 50.0% | — | 1,828 | 0 | 12 | 1969 | 33–8 | 80.5% | — | 2,031 | 1 | 13 |
| 27 | 1974 | 5–3 | 62.5% | — | 1,821 | 0 | 12 | 1970 | 43–8 | 84.3% | — | 2,114 | 1 | 20 |
| 28 | 1975 | 10–6 | 62.5% | — | 1,795 | 0 | 12 | 1971 | 29–13 | 69.0% | — | 2,078 | 1 | 20 |
| 29 | 1976 | 4–5 | 44.4% | — | 1,735 | 0 | 12 | 1972 | 45–12 | 78.9% | — | 2,128 | 1 | 25 |
| 30 | 1977 | 8–2 | 80.0% | — | 1,796 | 0 | 14 | 1973 | 34–13 | 72.3% | — | 2,162 | 1 | 25 |
| 31 | 1978 | 12–5 | 70.6% | — | 1,784 | 0 | 14 | 1974 | 25–13 | 65.8% | — | 2,057 | 1 | 25 |
| 32 | 1979 | 4–2 | 66.7% | — | 1,761 | 0 | 14 | 1975 | 24–11 | 68.6% | — | 2,080 | 1 | 26 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1976 | 14–10 | 58.3% | — | 2,034 | 1 | 26 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1977 | 15–7 | 68.2% | — | 1,983 | 1 | 28 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1978 | 6–9 | 40.0% | — | 1,902 | 1 | 28 |