H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Amélie Mauresmo vs Jelena Kostanic Tosic H2H: 2-0
Amélie Mauresmo holds a 2–0 lead over Jelena Kostanic Tosic in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Amélie Mauresmo leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Amélie Mauresmo won the 2004 Wimbledon first round 6-2 6-3.
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
–
0
2 main draw meetings
CRO
Age 45
Left-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 23, 2004* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R128 | Grass | Amélie Mauresmo | 6-2 6-3 | Jelena Kostanic Tosic | Match data |
| May 8, 2003* | Berlin | WTA 1000 | R32 | Clay | Amélie Mauresmo | 6-1 6-4 | Jelena Kostanic Tosic | 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 |
| Jelena Kostanic Tosic | #937 | #32 | 900 | 1,726 | 112 | 151 | 42.6% | 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.
| Age | Amélie Mauresmo | Jelena Kostanic Tosic | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1998 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #240 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1997 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #100 | 1,555 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #97 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1998 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #29 | 1,729 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 10–13 | 43.5% | #114 | 1,523 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1999 | 32–14 | 69.6% | #10 | 1,914 | 0 | 1 | 2001 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #131 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2000 | 26–12 | 68.4% | #16 | 1,932 | 0 | 2 | 2002 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #70 | 1,570 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2001 | 43–12 | 78.2% | #9 | 2,029 | 0 | 6 | 2003 | 16–20 | 44.4% | #66 | 1,621 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2002 | 45–15 | 75.0% | #6 | 2,060 | 0 | 8 | 2004 | 22–25 | 46.8% | #35 | 1,678 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2003 | 45–17 | 72.6% | #4 | 2,061 | 0 | 10 | 2005 | 11–21 | 34.4% | #87 | 1,549 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2004 | 56–11 | 83.6% | #2 | 2,175 | 0 | 15 | 2006 | 19–18 | 51.4% | #51 | 1,577 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2005 | 53–16 | 76.8% | #3 | 2,127 | 0 | 19 | 2007 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #103 | 1,534 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2006 | 50–14 | 78.1% | #3 | 2,135 | 2 | 23 | 2008 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #114 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2007 | 27–14 | 65.9% | #18 | 1,960 | 2 | 24 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2008 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #24 | 1,815 | 2 | 24 | 2010 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #830 | 1,460 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2009 | 25–12 | 67.6% | #21 | 1,871 | 2 | 25 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |