H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Winnie Shaw vs Sharon Walsh Pete H2H: 4-1
Winnie Shaw holds a 4–1 lead over Sharon Walsh Pete in their WTA head-to-head. Across 5 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on carpet, while Winnie Shaw leads 2–0 on grass. Most recently, Winnie Shaw won the 1975 Wimbledon second round 9-7 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.
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 27, 1975* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R64 | Grass | Winnie Shaw | 9-7 6-4 | Sharon Walsh Pete | Match data |
| Jan 22, 1972* | London Invitational | WTA 250 | R16 | Carpet | Winnie Shaw | 2-6 6-1 6-1 | Sharon Walsh Pete | Match data |
| Oct 19, 1970* | Edinburgh | WTA 250 | F | Carpet | Sharon Walsh Pete | 6-2 8-6 | Winnie Shaw | Match data |
| Oct 4, 1969* | Berkeley | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Winnie Shaw | 2-6 9-7 7-5 | Sharon Walsh Pete | Match data |
| Aug 14, 1969* | Haverford | WTA 250 | R32 | Grass | Winnie Shaw | 4-6 6-4 6-3 | Sharon Walsh Pete | 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 |
| Sharon Walsh Pete | — | — | — | 1,894 | 300 | 340 | 46.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 8 |
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 | Sharon Walsh Pete | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1968 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,484 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1969 | 4–6 | 40.0% | — | 1,524 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1970 | 32–16 | 66.7% | — | 1,833 | 0 | 2 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1971 | 10–10 | 50.0% | — | 1,707 | 0 | 2 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1972 | 32–27 | 54.2% | — | 1,729 | 0 | 3 |
| 21 | 1968 | 49–28 | 63.6% | — | 1,787 | 0 | 1 | 1973 | 37–33 | 52.9% | — | 1,653 | 0 | 4 |
| 22 | 1969 | 69–27 | 71.9% | — | 1,907 | 0 | 3 | 1974 | 27–19 | 58.7% | — | 1,774 | 0 | 7 |
| 23 | 1970 | 55–26 | 67.9% | — | 1,941 | 0 | 6 | 1975 | 9–25 | 26.5% | — | 1,661 | 0 | 7 |
| 24 | 1971 | 46–26 | 63.9% | — | 1,855 | 0 | 7 | 1976 | 7–10 | 41.2% | — | 1,620 | 0 | 7 |
| 25 | 1972 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,858 | 0 | 11 | 1977 | 17–21 | 44.7% | — | 1,722 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 1973 | 2–2 | 50.0% | — | 1,828 | 0 | 12 | 1978 | 15–27 | 35.7% | — | 1,677 | 0 | 7 |
| 27 | 1974 | 5–3 | 62.5% | — | 1,821 | 0 | 12 | 1979 | 14–22 | 38.9% | — | 1,620 | 0 | 7 |
| 28 | 1975 | 10–6 | 62.5% | — | 1,795 | 0 | 12 | 1980 | 16–19 | 45.7% | — | 1,712 | 0 | 7 |
| 29 | 1976 | 4–5 | 44.4% | — | 1,735 | 0 | 12 | 1981 | 25–17 | 59.5% | — | 1,841 | 0 | 8 |
| 30 | 1977 | 8–2 | 80.0% | — | 1,796 | 0 | 14 | 1982 | 10–19 | 34.5% | — | 1,758 | 0 | 8 |
| 31 | 1978 | 12–5 | 70.6% | — | 1,784 | 0 | 14 | 1983 | 15–13 | 53.6% | — | 1,810 | 0 | 8 |
| 32 | 1979 | 4–2 | 66.7% | — | 1,761 | 0 | 14 | 1984 | 8–12 | 40.0% | — | 1,808 | 0 | 8 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1985 | 8–17 | 32.0% | — | 1,627 | 0 | 8 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1986 | 2–4 | 33.3% | — | 1,602 | 0 | 8 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1987 | 11–15 | 42.3% | — | 1,598 | 0 | 8 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1988 | 0–6 | 0.0% | — | 1,507 | 0 | 8 |