H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Amélie Mauresmo vs Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario H2H: 2-1
Amélie Mauresmo holds a 2–1 lead over Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Amélie Mauresmo leads 2–0 on clay, while Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Amélie Mauresmo won the 2001 Amelia Island semifinal 6-3 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.
FRA
Age 47
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
ESP
Age 54
Right-Handed
169 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 14, 2001* | Amelia Island | WTA 500 | SF | Clay | Amélie Mauresmo | 6-3 6-2 | Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario | Match data |
| May 20, 2000* | Rome | WTA 1000 | QF | Clay | Amélie Mauresmo | 6-1 5-7 6-4 | Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario | Match data |
| Oct 9, 1998* | Filderstadt | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario | 6-3 6-2 | Amélie Mauresmo | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amélie Mauresmo | #21 | #1 | 4,992 | 2,217 | 458 | 183 | 71.5% | 2 | 6 | 1 | 15 | 1 | 25 |
| Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario | #52 | #1 | 3,768 | 2,385 | 708 | 267 | 72.6% | 4 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 17 | 29 |
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 | Amélie Mauresmo | Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1986 | 15–10 | 60.0% | #81 | 1,620 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | 1995 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #250 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 | 1987 | 12–13 | 48.0% | #54 | 1,639 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 1996 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #180 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 | 1988 | 31–15 | 67.4% | #18 | 1,809 | 0 | 1 |
| 17 | 1997 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #100 | 1,555 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 47–13 | 78.3% | #5 | 2,068 | 1 | 3 |
| 18 | 1998 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #29 | 1,729 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 38–14 | 73.1% | #7 | 2,081 | 1 | 5 |
| 19 | 1999 | 32–14 | 69.6% | #10 | 1,914 | 0 | 1 | 1991 | 56–15 | 78.9% | #5 | 2,166 | 1 | 6 |
| 20 | 2000 | 26–12 | 68.4% | #16 | 1,932 | 0 | 2 | 1992 | 59–15 | 79.7% | #4 | 2,288 | 1 | 8 |
| 21 | 2001 | 43–12 | 78.2% | #9 | 2,029 | 0 | 6 | 1993 | 72–14 | 83.7% | #2 | 2,248 | 1 | 12 |
| 22 | 2002 | 45–15 | 75.0% | #6 | 2,060 | 0 | 8 | 1994 | 69–9 | 88.5% | #2 | 2,333 | 3 | 20 |
| 23 | 2003 | 45–17 | 72.6% | #4 | 2,061 | 0 | 10 | 1995 | 47–13 | 78.3% | #3 | 2,156 | 3 | 22 |
| 24 | 2004 | 56–11 | 83.6% | #2 | 2,175 | 0 | 15 | 1996 | 52–16 | 76.5% | #3 | 2,106 | 3 | 24 |
| 25 | 2005 | 53–16 | 76.8% | #3 | 2,127 | 0 | 19 | 1997 | 45–22 | 67.2% | #9 | 2,022 | 3 | 24 |
| 26 | 2006 | 50–14 | 78.1% | #3 | 2,135 | 2 | 23 | 1998 | 47–17 | 73.4% | #4 | 2,039 | 4 | 26 |
| 27 | 2007 | 27–14 | 65.9% | #18 | 1,960 | 2 | 24 | 1999 | 25–17 | 59.5% | #17 | 1,932 | 4 | 27 |
| 28 | 2008 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #24 | 1,815 | 2 | 24 | 2000 | 38–18 | 67.9% | #8 | 1,930 | 4 | 27 |
| 29 | 2009 | 25–12 | 67.6% | #21 | 1,871 | 2 | 25 | 2001 | 34–22 | 60.7% | #17 | 1,795 | 4 | 29 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2002 | 21–24 | 46.7% | #53 | 1,634 | 4 | 29 |