H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Barbara Schett vs Meilen Tu H2H: 2-0
Barbara Schett holds a 2–0 lead over Meilen Tu in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Barbara Schett leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Barbara Schett won the 2002 Rome second round 6-3 7-5.
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
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
USA
Age 48
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 15, 2002* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Barbara Schett | 6-3 7-5 | Meilen Tu | Match data |
| Jan 19, 2000* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Barbara Schett | 6-2 6-7(1) 6-4 | Meilen Tu | 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 |
| Meilen Tu | #1,136 | #35 | 769 | 1,692 | 103 | 163 | 38.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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 | Meilen Tu | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1994 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #160 | 1,542 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1993 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #137 | 1,547 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #161 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1994 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #100 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #157 | 1,518 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1995 | 8–10 | 44.4% | #83 | 1,585 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 6–13 | 31.6% | #81 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1996 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #32 | 1,759 | 0 | 1 | 1998 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #209 | 1,533 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1997 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #38 | 1,762 | 0 | 2 | 1999 | 3–11 | 21.4% | #103 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1998 | 34–26 | 56.7% | #23 | 1,822 | 0 | 2 | 2000 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #67 | 1,576 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1999 | 46–23 | 66.7% | #8 | 1,936 | 0 | 2 | 2001 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #45 | 1,615 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2000 | 27–22 | 55.1% | #22 | 1,815 | 0 | 3 | 2002 | 16–24 | 40.0% | #73 | 1,561 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2001 | 29–25 | 53.7% | #21 | 1,757 | 0 | 3 | 2003 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #143 | 1,478 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2002 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #40 | 1,750 | 0 | 3 | 2004 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #162 | 1,464 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2003 | 15–24 | 38.5% | #76 | 1,624 | 0 | 3 | 2005 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #120 | 1,474 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2004 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #90 | 1,590 | 0 | 3 | 2006 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #90 | 1,532 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #97 | 1,591 | 0 | 3 | 2007 | 20–22 | 47.6% | #47 | 1,625 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #630 | 1,546 | 0 | 1 |