H2H data updated: 2026-07-20 08:10 UTC
Amélie Mauresmo vs Barbara Schett H2H: 0-1
Barbara Schett holds a 1–0 lead over Amélie Mauresmo in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Barbara Schett leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Barbara Schett won the 1999 Sydney third round 6-1 7-6.
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
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
AUT
Age 50
Right-Handed
176 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 14, 1999* | Sydney | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Barbara Schett | 6-1 7-6 | 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 |
| Barbara Schett | #97 | #7 | 2,188 | 1,975 | 256 | 227 | 53.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
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 | Barbara Schett | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1995 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #250 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 1996 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #180 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #290 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1997 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #100 | 1,555 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #137 | 1,547 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1998 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #29 | 1,729 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #100 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1999 | 32–14 | 69.6% | #10 | 1,914 | 0 | 1 | 1995 | 8–10 | 44.4% | #83 | 1,585 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2000 | 26–12 | 68.4% | #16 | 1,932 | 0 | 2 | 1996 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #32 | 1,759 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2001 | 43–12 | 78.2% | #9 | 2,029 | 0 | 6 | 1997 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #38 | 1,762 | 0 | 2 |
| 22 | 2002 | 45–15 | 75.0% | #6 | 2,060 | 0 | 8 | 1998 | 34–26 | 56.7% | #23 | 1,822 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2003 | 45–17 | 72.6% | #4 | 2,061 | 0 | 10 | 1999 | 46–23 | 66.7% | #8 | 1,936 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 2004 | 56–11 | 83.6% | #2 | 2,175 | 0 | 15 | 2000 | 27–22 | 55.1% | #22 | 1,815 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2005 | 53–16 | 76.8% | #3 | 2,127 | 0 | 19 | 2001 | 29–25 | 53.7% | #21 | 1,757 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 2006 | 50–14 | 78.1% | #3 | 2,135 | 2 | 23 | 2002 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #40 | 1,750 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 2007 | 27–14 | 65.9% | #18 | 1,960 | 2 | 24 | 2003 | 15–24 | 38.5% | #76 | 1,624 | 0 | 3 |
| 28 | 2008 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #24 | 1,815 | 2 | 24 | 2004 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #90 | 1,590 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2009 | 25–12 | 67.6% | #21 | 1,871 | 2 | 25 | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #97 | 1,591 | 0 | 3 |