H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Ai Sugiyama vs Anke Huber H2H: 1-1
Ai Sugiyama and Anke Huber are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Ai Sugiyama leads 1–0 on grass, while Anke Huber leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Anke Huber won the 2000 New Haven fourth round 4-6 7-5 6-2.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
JPN
Age 51
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
GER
Age 51
Right-Handed
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 25, 2000* | New Haven | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Anke Huber | 4-6 7-5 6-2 | Ai Sugiyama | Match data |
| Jun 30, 1996* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R32 | Grass | Ai Sugiyama | 7-6 6-1 | Anke Huber | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ai Sugiyama | #97 | #8 | 2,400 | 1,951 | 411 | 362 | 53.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 6 |
| Anke Huber | #18 | #4 | 2,721 | 2,130 | 393 | 203 | 65.9% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 10 | 12 |
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 | Ai Sugiyama | Anke Huber | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1989 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #199 | 1,517 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1990 | 14–9 | 60.9% | #37 | 1,708 | 0 | 1 |
| 16 | 1992 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #184 | 1,477 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 30–13 | 69.8% | #14 | 1,959 | 0 | 2 |
| 17 | 1993 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #145 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 28–15 | 65.1% | #11 | 1,964 | 0 | 2 |
| 18 | 1994 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #72 | 1,557 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 41–15 | 73.2% | #10 | 2,056 | 0 | 3 |
| 19 | 1995 | 16–17 | 48.5% | #46 | 1,691 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 38–16 | 70.4% | #12 | 2,027 | 0 | 6 |
| 20 | 1996 | 22–18 | 55.0% | #28 | 1,738 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 41–15 | 73.2% | #10 | 2,091 | 0 | 7 |
| 21 | 1997 | 31–25 | 55.4% | #21 | 1,833 | 0 | 1 | 1996 | 45–15 | 75.0% | #7 | 2,055 | 0 | 10 |
| 22 | 1998 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #18 | 1,859 | 0 | 3 | 1997 | 34–24 | 58.6% | #13 | 1,954 | 0 | 10 |
| 23 | 1999 | 27–23 | 54.0% | #24 | 1,806 | 0 | 3 | 1998 | 25–18 | 58.1% | #21 | 1,898 | 0 | 10 |
| 24 | 2000 | 20–24 | 45.5% | #32 | 1,687 | 0 | 3 | 1999 | 32–26 | 55.2% | #16 | 1,886 | 0 | 10 |
| 25 | 2001 | 28–25 | 52.8% | #30 | 1,720 | 0 | 3 | 2000 | 29–16 | 64.4% | #19 | 1,898 | 0 | 12 |
| 26 | 2002 | 35–26 | 57.4% | #24 | 1,755 | 0 | 3 | 2001 | 35–20 | 63.6% | #18 | 1,834 | 0 | 12 |
| 27 | 2003 | 44–25 | 63.8% | #10 | 1,915 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2004 | 30–22 | 57.7% | #17 | 1,802 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2005 | 28–27 | 50.9% | #29 | 1,742 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2006 | 28–25 | 52.8% | #26 | 1,742 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2007 | 17–21 | 44.7% | #38 | 1,632 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2008 | 26–21 | 55.3% | #31 | 1,742 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2009 | 9–19 | 32.1% | #97 | 1,647 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |