H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Amélie Mauresmo vs Rita Grande H2H: 1-0
Amélie Mauresmo holds a 1–0 lead over Rita Grande in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Amélie Mauresmo leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Amélie Mauresmo won the 2002 Wimbledon second round 6-4 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
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
ITA
Age 51
Right-Handed
177 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 28, 2002* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R64 | Grass | Amélie Mauresmo | 6-4 6-2 | Rita Grande | 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 |
| Rita Grande | #1,172 | #24 | 1,020 | 1,755 | 172 | 218 | 44.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
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 | Rita Grande | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1991 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #370 | 1,471 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1997 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #100 | 1,555 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1998 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #29 | 1,729 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #186 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1999 | 32–14 | 69.6% | #10 | 1,914 | 0 | 1 | 1994 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #146 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2000 | 26–12 | 68.4% | #16 | 1,932 | 0 | 2 | 1995 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #72 | 1,591 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2001 | 43–12 | 78.2% | #9 | 2,029 | 0 | 6 | 1996 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #71 | 1,627 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2002 | 45–15 | 75.0% | #6 | 2,060 | 0 | 8 | 1997 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #44 | 1,676 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2003 | 45–17 | 72.6% | #4 | 2,061 | 0 | 10 | 1998 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #59 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2004 | 56–11 | 83.6% | #2 | 2,175 | 0 | 15 | 1999 | 21–18 | 53.8% | #54 | 1,679 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2005 | 53–16 | 76.8% | #3 | 2,127 | 0 | 19 | 2000 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,602 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2006 | 50–14 | 78.1% | #3 | 2,135 | 2 | 23 | 2001 | 35–26 | 57.4% | #24 | 1,742 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2007 | 27–14 | 65.9% | #18 | 1,960 | 2 | 24 | 2002 | 21–27 | 43.8% | #46 | 1,641 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2008 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #24 | 1,815 | 2 | 24 | 2003 | 14–25 | 35.9% | #70 | 1,534 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2009 | 25–12 | 67.6% | #21 | 1,871 | 2 | 25 | 2004 | 12–18 | 40.0% | #104 | 1,536 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1088 | 1,518 | 0 | 3 |