H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Amanda Coetzer vs Erika De Lone H2H: 2-0
Amanda Coetzer holds a 2–0 lead over Erika De Lone in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Amanda Coetzer leads 1–0 on carpet and 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Amanda Coetzer won the 2002 Charleston second round 6-4 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.
RSA
Age 54
Right-Handed
158 cm / 5'2"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
USA
Age 53
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 17, 2002* | Charleston | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Amanda Coetzer | 6-4 6-2 | Erika De Lone | Match data |
| Nov 7, 2000* | Philadelphia | WTA 500 | R32 | Carpet | Amanda Coetzer | 6-2 6-3 | Erika De Lone | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amanda Coetzer | #289 | #3 | 3,380 | 2,051 | 491 | 307 | 61.5% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 9 |
| Erika De Lone | #425 | #65 | 501 | 1,603 | 42 | 100 | 29.6% | 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 | Amanda Coetzer | Erika De Lone | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 1988 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #152 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #298 | 1,472 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1989 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #63 | 1,675 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #138 | 1,502 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1990 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #76 | 1,662 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #110 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1991 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #68 | 1,686 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #175 | 1,526 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1992 | 35–15 | 70.0% | #17 | 1,857 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #183 | 1,515 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1993 | 42–18 | 70.0% | #15 | 1,991 | 0 | 2 | 1994 | 1–9 | 10.0% | #200 | 1,436 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1994 | 38–19 | 66.7% | #18 | 1,885 | 0 | 3 | 1995 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #124 | 1,482 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1995 | 31–22 | 58.5% | #19 | 1,910 | 0 | 3 | 1996 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #131 | 1,449 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1996 | 31–20 | 60.8% | #14 | 1,863 | 0 | 3 | 1997 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #149 | 1,442 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1997 | 60–25 | 70.6% | #4 | 2,013 | 0 | 5 | 1998 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #178 | 1,443 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1998 | 32–23 | 58.2% | #17 | 1,887 | 0 | 6 | 1999 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #67 | 1,500 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1999 | 37–25 | 59.7% | #11 | 1,815 | 0 | 6 | 2000 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #118 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2000 | 44–22 | 66.7% | #12 | 1,892 | 0 | 7 | 2001 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #180 | 1,428 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2001 | 32–21 | 60.4% | #19 | 1,786 | 0 | 8 | 2002 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #165 | 1,422 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2002 | 30–22 | 57.7% | #21 | 1,795 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2003 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #25 | 1,738 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2004 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #286 | 1,718 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |