H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Amélie Mauresmo vs Brenda Schultz-Mccarthy H2H: 0-1
Brenda Schultz-Mccarthy holds a 1–0 lead over Amélie Mauresmo in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Brenda Schultz-Mccarthy leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Brenda Schultz-Mccarthy won the 1996 Roland Garros second round 6-4 5-7 7-5.
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
NED
Age 55
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 30, 1996* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R64 | Clay | Brenda Schultz-Mccarthy | 6-4 5-7 7-5 | 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 |
| Brenda Schultz-Mccarthy | #919 | #9 | 1,672 | 2,025 | 295 | 220 | 57.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 |
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 | Brenda Schultz-Mccarthy | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1986 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,490 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 1996 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #180 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 | 1987 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #149 | 1,515 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1997 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #100 | 1,555 | 0 | 0 | 1988 | 21–18 | 53.8% | #40 | 1,689 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1998 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #29 | 1,729 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #83 | 1,603 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1999 | 32–14 | 69.6% | #10 | 1,914 | 0 | 1 | 1990 | 18–17 | 51.4% | #43 | 1,677 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2000 | 26–12 | 68.4% | #16 | 1,932 | 0 | 2 | 1991 | 24–19 | 55.8% | #30 | 1,799 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2001 | 43–12 | 78.2% | #9 | 2,029 | 0 | 6 | 1992 | 30–20 | 60.0% | #33 | 1,818 | 0 | 2 |
| 22 | 2002 | 45–15 | 75.0% | #6 | 2,060 | 0 | 8 | 1993 | 26–20 | 56.5% | #40 | 1,789 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 2003 | 45–17 | 72.6% | #4 | 2,061 | 0 | 10 | 1994 | 44–21 | 67.7% | #15 | 1,885 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 2004 | 56–11 | 83.6% | #2 | 2,175 | 0 | 15 | 1995 | 37–15 | 71.2% | #13 | 1,970 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2005 | 53–16 | 76.8% | #3 | 2,127 | 0 | 19 | 1996 | 35–18 | 66.0% | #12 | 1,908 | 0 | 6 |
| 26 | 2006 | 50–14 | 78.1% | #3 | 2,135 | 2 | 23 | 1997 | 34–25 | 57.6% | #15 | 1,855 | 0 | 7 |
| 27 | 2007 | 27–14 | 65.9% | #18 | 1,960 | 2 | 24 | 1998 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #188 | 1,673 | 0 | 7 |
| 28 | 2008 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #24 | 1,815 | 2 | 24 | 1999 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #893 | 1,651 | 0 | 7 |
| 29 | 2009 | 25–12 | 67.6% | #21 | 1,871 | 2 | 25 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #299 | 1,642 | 0 | 7 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #190 | 1,614 | 0 | 7 |
| 37 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #391 | 1,592 | 0 | 7 |