H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Akiko Morigami vs Meilen Tu H2H: 0-1
Meilen Tu holds a 1–0 lead over Akiko Morigami in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Meilen Tu leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Meilen Tu won the 2004 Auckland third round 6-3 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.
JPN
Age 46
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 48
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 8, 2004* | Auckland | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Meilen Tu | 6-3 6-4 | Akiko Morigami | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Akiko Morigami | #402 | #41 | 775 | 1,714 | 78 | 108 | 41.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Meilen Tu | #1,136 | #35 | 769 | 1,692 | 103 | 163 | 38.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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 | Akiko Morigami | Meilen Tu | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1994 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #160 | 1,542 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #161 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1996 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #157 | 1,518 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1997 | 6–13 | 31.6% | #81 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1998 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #209 | 1,533 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1999 | 3–11 | 21.4% | #103 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2002 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #143 | 1,500 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #67 | 1,576 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2003 | 11–14 | 44.0% | #62 | 1,585 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #45 | 1,615 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2004 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #67 | 1,586 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 16–24 | 40.0% | #73 | 1,561 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2005 | 18–20 | 47.4% | #49 | 1,632 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #143 | 1,478 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2006 | 11–17 | 39.3% | #87 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #162 | 1,464 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2007 | 16–18 | 47.1% | #49 | 1,646 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #120 | 1,474 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2008 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #252 | 1,563 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #90 | 1,532 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2009 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #407 | 1,571 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 20–22 | 47.6% | #47 | 1,625 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #630 | 1,546 | 0 | 1 |