H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Andrea Jaeger vs Mary Lou Piatek H2H: 3-0
Andrea Jaeger holds a 3–0 lead over Mary Lou Piatek in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Andrea Jaeger leads 2–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Andrea Jaeger won the 1987 Houston third round 4-6 6-0 6-4.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 23, 1987* | Houston | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Andrea Jaeger | 4-6 6-0 6-4 | Mary Lou Piatek | Match data |
| Nov 15, 1980* | Tampa | WTA 250 | SF | Hard | Andrea Jaeger | 6-0 6-2 | Mary Lou Piatek | Match data |
| Aug 9, 1980* | Indianapolis | WTA 250 | QF | Clay | Andrea Jaeger | 6-1 6-1 | Mary Lou Piatek | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andrea Jaeger | #225 | #3 | — | 2,280 | 257 | 90 | 74.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 |
| Mary Lou Piatek | — | — | — | 1,936 | 153 | 206 | 42.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
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.
| Andrea Jaeger | Mary Lou Piatek | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 1979 | 2–2 | 50.0% | — | 1,522 | 0 | 1 | 1978 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 1980 | 62–18 | 77.5% | — | 2,169 | 0 | 4 | 1979 | 3–5 | 37.5% | — | 1,546 | 0 | 0 |
| 1981 | 61–18 | 77.2% | — | 2,179 | 0 | 7 | 1980 | 16–12 | 57.1% | — | 1,737 | 0 | 0 |
| 1982 | 65–20 | 76.5% | — | 2,170 | 0 | 9 | 1981 | 30–22 | 57.7% | — | 1,873 | 0 | 1 |
| 1983 | 50–18 | 73.5% | — | 2,091 | 0 | 10 | 1982 | 18–21 | 46.2% | — | 1,792 | 0 | 1 |
| 1984 | 9–6 | 60.0% | #42 | 2,015 | 0 | 10 | 1983 | 12–20 | 37.5% | — | 1,721 | 0 | 1 |
| 1985 | 5–5 | 50.0% | — | 1,932 | 0 | 10 | 1984 | 18–20 | 47.4% | — | 1,703 | 0 | 2 |
| 1986 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #225 | 1,907 | 0 | 10 | 1985 | 14–18 | 43.8% | — | 1,678 | 0 | 2 |
| 1987 | 3–2 | 60.0% | — | 1,882 | 0 | 10 | 1986 | 8–15 | 34.8% | — | 1,619 | 0 | 2 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1987 | 6–12 | 33.3% | — | 1,594 | 0 | 2 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1988 | 6–16 | 27.3% | — | 1,542 | 0 | 2 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1989 | 7–15 | 31.8% | — | 1,593 | 0 | 2 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1990 | 8–11 | 42.1% | — | 1,612 | 0 | 2 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1991 | 5–8 | 38.5% | — | 1,630 | 0 | 2 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1992 | 1–8 | 11.1% | — | 1,560 | 0 | 2 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1993 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,555 | 0 | 2 |