H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Catherine Tanvier vs Sandra Cecchini H2H: 1-1
Catherine Tanvier and Sandra Cecchini are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Catherine Tanvier leads 1–0 on carpet, while Sandra Cecchini leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Catherine Tanvier won the 1992 Cesena third round 2-6 7-5 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.
FRA
Age 61
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
ITA
Age 61
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 20, 1992* | Cesena | WTA 250 | R32 | Carpet | Catherine Tanvier | 2-6 7-5 6-4 | Sandra Cecchini | Match data |
| Aug 27, 1987* | Mahwah | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Sandra Cecchini | 5-7 6-4 7-6 | Catherine Tanvier | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Catherine Tanvier | #752 | #20 | 22 | 1,877 | 161 | 179 | 47.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sandra Cecchini | #487 | #15 | 279 | 1,937 | 299 | 215 | 58.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 8 | 11 |
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 | Catherine Tanvier | Sandra Cecchini | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1980 | 4–2 | 66.7% | — | 1,545 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1981 | 6–14 | 30.0% | — | 1,540 | 0 | 0 | 1981 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,477 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1982 | 23–19 | 54.8% | — | 1,791 | 0 | 0 | 1982 | 2–2 | 50.0% | — | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1983 | 17–16 | 51.5% | — | 1,824 | 0 | 0 | 1983 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,497 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1984 | 21–18 | 53.8% | #30 | 1,777 | 0 | 0 | 1984 | 17–15 | 53.1% | #49 | 1,651 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 1985 | 18–16 | 52.9% | #39 | 1,775 | 0 | 0 | 1985 | 22–19 | 53.7% | #49 | 1,746 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 1986 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #37 | 1,825 | 0 | 0 | 1986 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #73 | 1,635 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 1987 | 10–19 | 34.5% | #96 | 1,618 | 0 | 0 | 1987 | 36–16 | 69.2% | #18 | 1,860 | 0 | 5 |
| 23 | 1988 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #77 | 1,602 | 0 | 0 | 1988 | 34–14 | 70.8% | #21 | 1,845 | 0 | 7 |
| 24 | 1989 | 12–12 | 50.0% | #65 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 28–15 | 65.1% | #26 | 1,798 | 0 | 8 |
| 25 | 1990 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #99 | 1,658 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 26–14 | 65.0% | #20 | 1,815 | 0 | 9 |
| 26 | 1991 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #104 | 1,603 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 22–13 | 62.9% | #27 | 1,776 | 0 | 10 |
| 27 | 1992 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #105 | 1,614 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 23–15 | 60.5% | #34 | 1,824 | 0 | 11 |
| 28 | 1993 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #543 | 1,578 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 18–15 | 54.5% | #56 | 1,725 | 0 | 11 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1994 | 28–16 | 63.6% | #33 | 1,840 | 0 | 11 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #108 | 1,661 | 0 | 11 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1996 | 10–10 | 50.0% | #80 | 1,629 | 0 | 11 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1997 | 4–7 | 36.4% | #206 | 1,610 | 0 | 11 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1998 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #200 | 1,556 | 0 | 11 |