H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Amanda Coetzer vs Meilen Tu H2H: 3-1
Amanda Coetzer holds a 3–1 lead over Meilen Tu in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Amanda Coetzer leads 3–0 on hard courts, while Meilen Tu leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Amanda Coetzer won the 1997 Stanford fourth round 6-2 6-0.
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
3
–
1
4 main draw meetings
USA
Age 48
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 25, 1997* | Stanford | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Amanda Coetzer | 6-2 6-0 | Meilen Tu | Match data |
| Feb 21, 1997* | Oklahoma | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Amanda Coetzer | 6-1 6-0 | Meilen Tu | Match data |
| Mar 11, 1996* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Amanda Coetzer | 6-1 6-1 | Meilen Tu | Match data |
| Nov 10, 1994* | Philadelphia | WTA 1000 | R32 | Carpet | Meilen Tu | 6-1 6-3 | Amanda Coetzer | 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 |
| 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 | Amanda Coetzer | Meilen Tu | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1994 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #160 | 1,542 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1989 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #63 | 1,675 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #161 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1990 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #76 | 1,662 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #157 | 1,518 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1991 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #68 | 1,686 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 6–13 | 31.6% | #81 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1992 | 35–15 | 70.0% | #17 | 1,857 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #209 | 1,533 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1993 | 42–18 | 70.0% | #15 | 1,991 | 0 | 2 | 1999 | 3–11 | 21.4% | #103 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1994 | 38–19 | 66.7% | #18 | 1,885 | 0 | 3 | 2000 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #67 | 1,576 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1995 | 31–22 | 58.5% | #19 | 1,910 | 0 | 3 | 2001 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #45 | 1,615 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 1996 | 31–20 | 60.8% | #14 | 1,863 | 0 | 3 | 2002 | 16–24 | 40.0% | #73 | 1,561 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 1997 | 60–25 | 70.6% | #4 | 2,013 | 0 | 5 | 2003 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #143 | 1,478 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 1998 | 32–23 | 58.2% | #17 | 1,887 | 0 | 6 | 2004 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #162 | 1,464 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 1999 | 37–25 | 59.7% | #11 | 1,815 | 0 | 6 | 2005 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #120 | 1,474 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2000 | 44–22 | 66.7% | #12 | 1,892 | 0 | 7 | 2006 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #90 | 1,532 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2001 | 32–21 | 60.4% | #19 | 1,786 | 0 | 8 | 2007 | 20–22 | 47.6% | #47 | 1,625 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2002 | 30–22 | 57.7% | #21 | 1,795 | 0 | 8 | 2008 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #630 | 1,546 | 0 | 1 |
| 31 | 2003 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #25 | 1,738 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2004 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #286 | 1,718 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |