H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Amélie Mauresmo vs Fang Li H2H: 1-0
Amélie Mauresmo holds a 1–0 lead over Fang Li in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Amélie Mauresmo leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Amélie Mauresmo won the 1999 Key Biscayne second round 6-2 3-0 RET.
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
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
CHN
Right-Handed
166 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 1999* | Key Biscayne | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Amélie Mauresmo | 6-2 3-0 (ret.) | Fang Li | 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 |
| Fang Li | #488 | #36 | 723 | 1,705 | 67 | 89 | 42.9% | 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.
| Amélie Mauresmo | Fang Li | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 1995 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #250 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #119 | 1,547 | 0 | 0 |
| 1996 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #180 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #132 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 |
| 1997 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #100 | 1,555 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #67 | 1,609 | 0 | 0 |
| 1998 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #29 | 1,729 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 9–8 | 52.9% | #93 | 1,613 | 0 | 0 |
| 1999 | 32–14 | 69.6% | #10 | 1,914 | 0 | 1 | 1996 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #199 | 1,585 | 0 | 0 |
| 2000 | 26–12 | 68.4% | #16 | 1,932 | 0 | 2 | 1997 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #69 | 1,594 | 0 | 0 |
| 2001 | 43–12 | 78.2% | #9 | 2,029 | 0 | 6 | 1998 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #40 | 1,676 | 0 | 0 |
| 2002 | 45–15 | 75.0% | #6 | 2,060 | 0 | 8 | 1999 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #86 | 1,585 | 0 | 0 |
| 2003 | 45–17 | 72.6% | #4 | 2,061 | 0 | 10 | 2000 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #503 | 1,541 | 0 | 0 |
| 2004 | 56–11 | 83.6% | #2 | 2,175 | 0 | 15 | 2001 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #488 | 1,500 | 0 | 0 |
| 2005 | 53–16 | 76.8% | #3 | 2,127 | 0 | 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2006 | 50–14 | 78.1% | #3 | 2,135 | 2 | 23 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2007 | 27–14 | 65.9% | #18 | 1,960 | 2 | 24 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2008 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #24 | 1,815 | 2 | 24 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2009 | 25–12 | 67.6% | #21 | 1,871 | 2 | 25 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |