H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Chanda Rubin vs Maureen Drake H2H: 2-0
Chanda Rubin holds a 2–0 lead over Maureen Drake in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Chanda Rubin leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Chanda Rubin won the 2000 Amelia Island second round 7-5 6-3.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
USA
Age 50
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
CAN
Age 55
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 12, 2000* | Amelia Island | WTA 500 | R64 | Clay | Chanda Rubin | 7-5 6-3 | Maureen Drake | Match data |
| Mar 12, 2000* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Chanda Rubin | 6-7(5) 6-3 6-4 | Maureen Drake | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chanda Rubin | #1,122 | #6 | 2,554 | 2,047 | 343 | 231 | 59.8% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 7 |
| Maureen Drake | #1,132 | #47 | 612 | 1,586 | 40 | 93 | 30.1% | 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 | Chanda Rubin | Maureen Drake | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | 1990 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #526 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 15 | 1991 | 8–6 | 57.1% | #84 | 1,583 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1992 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #84 | 1,617 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1993 | 15–17 | 46.9% | #70 | 1,653 | 0 | 0 | 1988 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #275 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1994 | 28–17 | 62.2% | #23 | 1,804 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #163 | 1,505 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1995 | 38–19 | 66.7% | #15 | 1,945 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #209 | 1,464 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1996 | 20–9 | 69.0% | #17 | 1,989 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #198 | 1,451 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1997 | 23–20 | 53.5% | #32 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 | 1992 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #188 | 1,412 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1998 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #35 | 1,800 | 0 | 1 | 1993 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #171 | 1,415 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1999 | 33–20 | 62.3% | #22 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 | 1994 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #170 | 1,411 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2000 | 42–22 | 65.6% | #13 | 1,910 | 0 | 3 | 1995 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #165 | 1,454 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2001 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #52 | 1,806 | 0 | 3 | 1996 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #173 | 1,432 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2002 | 29–11 | 72.5% | #13 | 1,958 | 0 | 5 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #159 | 1,423 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2003 | 43–20 | 68.3% | #9 | 1,917 | 0 | 7 | 1998 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #130 | 1,412 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2004 | 16–10 | 61.5% | #52 | 1,860 | 0 | 7 | 1999 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #57 | 1,554 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2005 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #545 | 1,823 | 0 | 7 | 2000 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #147 | 1,502 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2006 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #486 | 1,719 | 0 | 7 | 2001 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #161 | 1,493 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2002 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #99 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2003 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #115 | 1,500 | 0 | 0 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #191 | 1,461 | 0 | 0 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #278 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 |