H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Amélie Mauresmo vs Maureen Drake H2H: 1-0
Amélie Mauresmo holds a 1–0 lead over Maureen Drake in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Amélie Mauresmo leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Amélie Mauresmo won the 1999 Rome second round 6-2 6-1.
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
CAN
Age 55
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 5, 1999* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Amélie Mauresmo | 6-2 6-1 | Maureen Drake | 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 |
| Maureen Drake | #1,132 | #47 | 612 | 1,586 | 40 | 93 | 30.1% | 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 | Maureen Drake | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1988 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #275 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1998 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #29 | 1,729 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #163 | 1,505 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1999 | 32–14 | 69.6% | #10 | 1,914 | 0 | 1 | 1990 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #209 | 1,464 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2000 | 26–12 | 68.4% | #16 | 1,932 | 0 | 2 | 1991 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #198 | 1,451 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2001 | 43–12 | 78.2% | #9 | 2,029 | 0 | 6 | 1992 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #188 | 1,412 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2002 | 45–15 | 75.0% | #6 | 2,060 | 0 | 8 | 1993 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #171 | 1,415 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2003 | 45–17 | 72.6% | #4 | 2,061 | 0 | 10 | 1994 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #170 | 1,411 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2004 | 56–11 | 83.6% | #2 | 2,175 | 0 | 15 | 1995 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #165 | 1,454 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2005 | 53–16 | 76.8% | #3 | 2,127 | 0 | 19 | 1996 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #173 | 1,432 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2006 | 50–14 | 78.1% | #3 | 2,135 | 2 | 23 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #159 | 1,423 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2007 | 27–14 | 65.9% | #18 | 1,960 | 2 | 24 | 1998 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #130 | 1,412 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2008 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #24 | 1,815 | 2 | 24 | 1999 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #57 | 1,554 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2009 | 25–12 | 67.6% | #21 | 1,871 | 2 | 25 | 2000 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #147 | 1,502 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2001 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #161 | 1,493 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2002 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #99 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2003 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #115 | 1,500 | 0 | 0 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #191 | 1,461 | 0 | 0 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #278 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 |