H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Amélie Mauresmo vs Jana Novotna H2H: 1-2
Jana Novotna holds a 2–1 lead over Amélie Mauresmo in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Jana Novotna leads 1–0 on carpet, while Amélie Mauresmo leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Jana Novotna won the 1998 New Haven quarterfinal 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
1
–
2
3 main draw meetings
CZE
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 29, 1998* | New Haven | WTA 500 | QF | Hard | Jana Novotna | 6-1 7-6 | Amélie Mauresmo | Match data |
| May 16, 1998* | Berlin | WTA 1000 | SF | Clay | Amélie Mauresmo | 7-5 5-7 6-4 | Jana Novotna | Match data |
| Feb 27, 1998* | Linz | WTA 500 | R16 | Carpet | Jana Novotna | 6-4 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 |
| Jana Novotna | #18 | #2 | 5,063 | 2,224 | 504 | 198 | 71.8% | 1 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 13 | 24 |
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 | Jana Novotna | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1996 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #180 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1997 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #100 | 1,555 | 0 | 0 | 1986 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #171 | 1,466 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1998 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #29 | 1,729 | 0 | 0 | 1987 | 21–17 | 55.3% | #47 | 1,752 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1999 | 32–14 | 69.6% | #10 | 1,914 | 0 | 1 | 1988 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #35 | 1,757 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 2000 | 26–12 | 68.4% | #16 | 1,932 | 0 | 2 | 1989 | 45–17 | 72.6% | #11 | 1,962 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 2001 | 43–12 | 78.2% | #9 | 2,029 | 0 | 6 | 1990 | 40–16 | 71.4% | #13 | 2,016 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2002 | 45–15 | 75.0% | #6 | 2,060 | 0 | 8 | 1991 | 45–15 | 75.0% | #7 | 2,072 | 0 | 5 |
| 23 | 2003 | 45–17 | 72.6% | #4 | 2,061 | 0 | 10 | 1992 | 36–17 | 67.9% | #10 | 2,089 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 2004 | 56–11 | 83.6% | #2 | 2,175 | 0 | 15 | 1993 | 46–15 | 75.4% | #6 | 2,103 | 0 | 7 |
| 25 | 2005 | 53–16 | 76.8% | #3 | 2,127 | 0 | 19 | 1994 | 43–11 | 79.6% | #4 | 2,141 | 0 | 10 |
| 26 | 2006 | 50–14 | 78.1% | #3 | 2,135 | 2 | 23 | 1995 | 30–12 | 71.4% | #11 | 2,031 | 0 | 11 |
| 27 | 2007 | 27–14 | 65.9% | #18 | 1,960 | 2 | 24 | 1996 | 47–12 | 79.7% | #5 | 2,209 | 0 | 15 |
| 28 | 2008 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #24 | 1,815 | 2 | 24 | 1997 | 52–15 | 77.6% | #2 | 2,173 | 0 | 19 |
| 29 | 2009 | 25–12 | 67.6% | #21 | 1,871 | 2 | 25 | 1998 | 50–14 | 78.1% | #3 | 2,129 | 1 | 23 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1999 | 26–15 | 63.4% | #18 | 1,924 | 1 | 24 |