H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Amélie Mauresmo vs Natasha Zvereva H2H: 0-1
Natasha Zvereva holds a 1–0 lead over Amélie Mauresmo in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Natasha Zvereva leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Natasha Zvereva won the 1998 Prague quarterfinal 6-3 6-2.
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
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
BLR
Age 55
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 11, 1998* | Prague | WTA 250 | QF | Clay | Natasha Zvereva | 6-3 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 |
| Natasha Zvereva | #201 | #5 | 1,820 | 2,073 | 388 | 232 | 62.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
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 | Natasha Zvereva | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1986 | 4–2 | 66.7% | #94 | 1,575 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 1996 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #180 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 | 1987 | 21–11 | 65.6% | #19 | 1,831 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1997 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #100 | 1,555 | 0 | 0 | 1988 | 38–17 | 69.1% | #7 | 1,991 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1998 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #29 | 1,729 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 23–17 | 57.5% | #27 | 1,802 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1999 | 32–14 | 69.6% | #10 | 1,914 | 0 | 1 | 1990 | 38–15 | 71.7% | #12 | 1,955 | 0 | 2 |
| 20 | 2000 | 26–12 | 68.4% | #16 | 1,932 | 0 | 2 | 1991 | 29–18 | 61.7% | #21 | 1,912 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 2001 | 43–12 | 78.2% | #9 | 2,029 | 0 | 6 | 1992 | 32–19 | 62.7% | #23 | 1,977 | 0 | 2 |
| 22 | 2002 | 45–15 | 75.0% | #6 | 2,060 | 0 | 8 | 1993 | 37–19 | 66.1% | #19 | 1,972 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2003 | 45–17 | 72.6% | #4 | 2,061 | 0 | 10 | 1994 | 29–12 | 70.7% | #10 | 1,978 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 2004 | 56–11 | 83.6% | #2 | 2,175 | 0 | 15 | 1995 | 31–17 | 64.6% | #14 | 1,971 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2005 | 53–16 | 76.8% | #3 | 2,127 | 0 | 19 | 1996 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #57 | 1,877 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 2006 | 50–14 | 78.1% | #3 | 2,135 | 2 | 23 | 1997 | 25–20 | 55.6% | #25 | 1,902 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 2007 | 27–14 | 65.9% | #18 | 1,960 | 2 | 24 | 1998 | 35–21 | 62.5% | #16 | 1,932 | 0 | 4 |
| 28 | 2008 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #24 | 1,815 | 2 | 24 | 1999 | 24–19 | 55.8% | #27 | 1,824 | 0 | 5 |
| 29 | 2009 | 25–12 | 67.6% | #21 | 1,871 | 2 | 25 | 2000 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #78 | 1,759 | 0 | 5 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2002 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,733 | 0 | 5 |