H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Barbara Schett vs Lilia Osterloh H2H: 0-1
Lilia Osterloh holds a 1–0 lead over Barbara Schett in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Lilia Osterloh leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Lilia Osterloh won the 1999 Indian Wells second round 6-4 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.
AUT
Age 50
Right-Handed
176 cm / 5'9"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 48
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7, 1999* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Lilia Osterloh | 6-4 6-4 | Barbara Schett | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barbara Schett | #97 | #7 | 2,188 | 1,975 | 256 | 227 | 53.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Lilia Osterloh | #1,223 | #41 | 738 | 1,697 | 83 | 138 | 37.6% | 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 | Barbara Schett | Lilia Osterloh | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1991 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1992 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #290 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1993 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #137 | 1,547 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1994 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #100 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #195 | 1,518 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1995 | 8–10 | 44.4% | #83 | 1,585 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #170 | 1,551 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1996 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #32 | 1,759 | 0 | 1 | 1998 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #120 | 1,501 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1997 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #38 | 1,762 | 0 | 2 | 1999 | 9–13 | 40.9% | #79 | 1,545 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1998 | 34–26 | 56.7% | #23 | 1,822 | 0 | 2 | 2000 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #43 | 1,595 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1999 | 46–23 | 66.7% | #8 | 1,936 | 0 | 2 | 2001 | 23–25 | 47.9% | #53 | 1,659 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2000 | 27–22 | 55.1% | #22 | 1,815 | 0 | 3 | 2002 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #156 | 1,535 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2001 | 29–25 | 53.7% | #21 | 1,757 | 0 | 3 | 2003 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #180 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2002 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #40 | 1,750 | 0 | 3 | 2004 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #119 | 1,561 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2003 | 15–24 | 38.5% | #76 | 1,624 | 0 | 3 | 2005 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #144 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2004 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #90 | 1,590 | 0 | 3 | 2006 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #118 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #97 | 1,591 | 0 | 3 | 2007 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #91 | 1,543 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #230 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #136 | 1,510 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #237 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 |