H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Amélie Mauresmo vs Meghann Shaughnessy H2H: 4-0
Amélie Mauresmo holds a 4–0 lead over Meghann Shaughnessy in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Amélie Mauresmo leads 3–0 on hard courts and 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Amélie Mauresmo won the 2006 US Open second round 6-4 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
4
–
0
4 main draw meetings
USA
Age 47
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 31, 2006* | US Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Amélie Mauresmo | 6-4 6-3 | Meghann Shaughnessy | Match data |
| May 30, 2006* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R128 | Clay | Amélie Mauresmo | 6-4 6-4 | Meghann Shaughnessy | Match data |
| Jan 16, 2004* | Sydney | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Amélie Mauresmo | 6-2 6-3 | Meghann Shaughnessy | Match data |
| Oct 9, 2003* | Filderstadt | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Amélie Mauresmo | 7-6(4) 6-2 | Meghann Shaughnessy | 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 |
| Meghann Shaughnessy | #1,104 | #11 | 1,949 | 1,888 | 233 | 233 | 50.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
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 | Meghann Shaughnessy | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1996 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #165 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1998 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #29 | 1,729 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #198 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1999 | 32–14 | 69.6% | #10 | 1,914 | 0 | 1 | 1998 | 8–9 | 47.1% | #69 | 1,544 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2000 | 26–12 | 68.4% | #16 | 1,932 | 0 | 2 | 1999 | 10–22 | 31.2% | #99 | 1,439 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2001 | 43–12 | 78.2% | #9 | 2,029 | 0 | 6 | 2000 | 23–20 | 53.5% | #38 | 1,652 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2002 | 45–15 | 75.0% | #6 | 2,060 | 0 | 8 | 2001 | 45–25 | 64.3% | #12 | 1,825 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2003 | 45–17 | 72.6% | #4 | 2,061 | 0 | 10 | 2002 | 29–27 | 51.8% | #30 | 1,716 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 2004 | 56–11 | 83.6% | #2 | 2,175 | 0 | 15 | 2003 | 32–23 | 58.2% | #17 | 1,725 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2005 | 53–16 | 76.8% | #3 | 2,127 | 0 | 19 | 2004 | 20–22 | 47.6% | #40 | 1,663 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 2006 | 50–14 | 78.1% | #3 | 2,135 | 2 | 23 | 2005 | 17–25 | 40.5% | #66 | 1,563 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 2007 | 27–14 | 65.9% | #18 | 1,960 | 2 | 24 | 2006 | 27–20 | 57.4% | #37 | 1,709 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2008 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #24 | 1,815 | 2 | 24 | 2007 | 18–22 | 45.0% | #52 | 1,666 | 0 | 6 |
| 29 | 2009 | 25–12 | 67.6% | #21 | 1,871 | 2 | 25 | 2008 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #836 | 1,579 | 0 | 6 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #590 | 1,533 | 0 | 6 |