H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Yvonne Vermaak vs Penny Barg H2H: 2-0
Yvonne Vermaak holds a 2–0 lead over Penny Barg in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Yvonne Vermaak leads 2–0 on clay. Most recently, Yvonne Vermaak won the 1986 Indianapolis third round 6-2 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.
RSA
Age 69
Right-Handed
155 cm / 5'1"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
Age 62
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 30, 1986* | Indianapolis | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Yvonne Vermaak | 6-2 6-4 | Penny Barg | Match data |
| May 12, 1982* | Lugano | WTA 250 | R64 | Clay | Yvonne Vermaak | 6-3 7-5 | Penny Barg | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yvonne Vermaak | #558 | #38 | 10 | 1,891 | 239 | 249 | 49.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| Penny Barg | — | — | — | 1,611 | 19 | 34 | 35.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Yvonne Vermaak | Penny Barg | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 1973 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,495 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1974 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,489 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1975 | 15–12 | 55.6% | — | 1,599 | 0 | 0 | 1982 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,515 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1976 | 8–10 | 44.4% | — | 1,607 | 0 | 1 | 1983 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,494 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1977 | 20–14 | 58.8% | — | 1,766 | 0 | 2 | 1984 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,500 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1978 | 29–23 | 55.8% | — | 1,797 | 0 | 2 | 1985 | 2–7 | 22.2% | — | 1,493 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1979 | 15–23 | 39.5% | — | 1,781 | 0 | 2 | 1986 | 3–5 | 37.5% | — | 1,497 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1980 | 19–18 | 51.4% | — | 1,740 | 0 | 2 | 1987 | 11–9 | 55.0% | — | 1,568 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1981 | 19–28 | 40.4% | — | 1,721 | 0 | 2 | 1988 | 1–6 | 14.3% | — | 1,525 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1982 | 36–27 | 57.1% | — | 1,819 | 0 | 2 | 1989 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1983 | 33–26 | 55.9% | — | 1,754 | 0 | 4 | 1990 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,501 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1984 | 29–28 | 50.9% | #41 | 1,801 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 1985 | 8–21 | 27.6% | #41 | 1,605 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 1986 | 6–11 | 35.3% | #104 | 1,565 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 1987 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #201 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 1988 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #287 | 1,542 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |