H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Amanda Coetzer vs Lilia Osterloh H2H: 1-1
Amanda Coetzer and Lilia Osterloh are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Amanda Coetzer leads 1–0 on clay, while Lilia Osterloh leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Lilia Osterloh won the 2000 Wimbledon second round 7-6(0) 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
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
USA
Age 48
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 29, 2000* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R64 | Grass | Lilia Osterloh | 7-6(0) 6-2 | Amanda Coetzer | Match data |
| Apr 8, 1999* | Amelia Island | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Amanda Coetzer | 6-4 6-2 | Lilia Osterloh | 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 |
| Lilia Osterloh | #1,223 | #41 | 738 | 1,697 | 83 | 138 | 37.6% | 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 | Lilia Osterloh | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1989 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #63 | 1,675 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1990 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #76 | 1,662 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #195 | 1,518 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1991 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #68 | 1,686 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #170 | 1,551 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1992 | 35–15 | 70.0% | #17 | 1,857 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #120 | 1,501 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1993 | 42–18 | 70.0% | #15 | 1,991 | 0 | 2 | 1999 | 9–13 | 40.9% | #79 | 1,545 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1994 | 38–19 | 66.7% | #18 | 1,885 | 0 | 3 | 2000 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #43 | 1,595 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1995 | 31–22 | 58.5% | #19 | 1,910 | 0 | 3 | 2001 | 23–25 | 47.9% | #53 | 1,659 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1996 | 31–20 | 60.8% | #14 | 1,863 | 0 | 3 | 2002 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #156 | 1,535 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1997 | 60–25 | 70.6% | #4 | 2,013 | 0 | 5 | 2003 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #180 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1998 | 32–23 | 58.2% | #17 | 1,887 | 0 | 6 | 2004 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #119 | 1,561 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1999 | 37–25 | 59.7% | #11 | 1,815 | 0 | 6 | 2005 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #144 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2000 | 44–22 | 66.7% | #12 | 1,892 | 0 | 7 | 2006 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #118 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2001 | 32–21 | 60.4% | #19 | 1,786 | 0 | 8 | 2007 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #91 | 1,543 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2002 | 30–22 | 57.7% | #21 | 1,795 | 0 | 8 | 2008 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #230 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2003 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #25 | 1,738 | 0 | 9 | 2009 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #136 | 1,510 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | 2004 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #286 | 1,718 | 0 | 9 | 2010 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #237 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 |