H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Chanda Rubin vs Miriam Oremans H2H: 2-1
Chanda Rubin holds a 2–1 lead over Miriam Oremans in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Chanda Rubin leads 2–0 on clay, while Miriam Oremans leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Chanda Rubin won the 2000 Roland Garros second round 1-6 7-6(2) 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
–
1
3 main draw meetings
NED
Age 53
Right-Handed
169 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 1, 2000* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R64 | Clay | Chanda Rubin | 1-6 7-6(2) 6-3 | Miriam Oremans | Match data |
| May 26, 1999* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R128 | Clay | Chanda Rubin | 6-0 6-3 | Miriam Oremans | Match data |
| Jun 16, 1993* | Eastbourne | WTA 250 | R64 | Grass | Miriam Oremans | 6-2 6-3 | Chanda Rubin | 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 |
| Miriam Oremans | #193 | #25 | 585 | 1,809 | 161 | 181 | 47.1% | 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 | Miriam Oremans | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1990 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #185 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1994 | 28–17 | 62.2% | #23 | 1,804 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #149 | 1,471 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1995 | 38–19 | 66.7% | #15 | 1,945 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #130 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1996 | 20–9 | 69.0% | #17 | 1,989 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 28–20 | 58.3% | #31 | 1,747 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1997 | 23–20 | 53.5% | #32 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 | 1994 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #48 | 1,733 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1998 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #35 | 1,800 | 0 | 1 | 1995 | 19–18 | 51.4% | #42 | 1,769 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1999 | 33–20 | 62.3% | #22 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 | 1996 | 17–18 | 48.6% | #46 | 1,714 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2000 | 42–22 | 65.6% | #13 | 1,910 | 0 | 3 | 1997 | 15–15 | 50.0% | #46 | 1,774 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2001 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #52 | 1,806 | 0 | 3 | 1998 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #57 | 1,729 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2002 | 29–11 | 72.5% | #13 | 1,958 | 0 | 5 | 1999 | 8–17 | 32.0% | #98 | 1,628 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2003 | 43–20 | 68.3% | #9 | 1,917 | 0 | 7 | 2000 | 16–12 | 57.1% | #64 | 1,701 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2004 | 16–10 | 61.5% | #52 | 1,860 | 0 | 7 | 2001 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #84 | 1,686 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2005 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #545 | 1,823 | 0 | 7 | 2002 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #124 | 1,611 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2006 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #486 | 1,719 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |