H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Conchita Martínez vs Akiko Morigami H2H: 0-1
Akiko Morigami holds a 1–0 lead over Conchita Martínez in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Akiko Morigami leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Akiko Morigami won the 2003 Shanghai fourth round 7-5 6-0.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
ESP
Age 54
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
JPN
Age 46
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 19, 2003* | Shanghai | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Akiko Morigami | 7-5 6-0 | Conchita Martínez | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conchita Martínez | #1,498 | #2 | 3,180 | 2,263 | 669 | 275 | 70.9% | 1 | 9 | 0 | 4 | 19 | 33 |
| Akiko Morigami | #402 | #41 | 775 | 1,714 | 78 | 108 | 41.9% | 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 | Conchita Martínez | Akiko Morigami | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 1988 | 14–6 | 70.0% | #41 | 1,730 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1989 | 35–9 | 79.5% | #7 | 1,933 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1990 | 38–10 | 79.2% | #11 | 2,063 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1991 | 36–12 | 75.0% | #9 | 2,076 | 0 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1992 | 44–16 | 73.3% | #8 | 2,054 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 1993 | 66–13 | 83.5% | #4 | 2,158 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 1994 | 51–14 | 78.5% | #3 | 2,065 | 1 | 20 | 2002 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #143 | 1,500 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1995 | 57–10 | 85.1% | #2 | 2,182 | 1 | 26 | 2003 | 11–14 | 44.0% | #62 | 1,585 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1996 | 44–16 | 73.3% | #4 | 2,074 | 1 | 28 | 2004 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #67 | 1,586 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1997 | 37–19 | 66.1% | #12 | 2,011 | 1 | 28 | 2005 | 18–20 | 47.4% | #49 | 1,632 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1998 | 38–16 | 70.4% | #8 | 1,968 | 1 | 30 | 2006 | 11–17 | 39.3% | #87 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1999 | 38–22 | 63.3% | #15 | 1,898 | 1 | 31 | 2007 | 16–18 | 47.1% | #49 | 1,646 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2000 | 48–19 | 71.6% | #5 | 1,951 | 1 | 32 | 2008 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #252 | 1,563 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2001 | 19–13 | 59.4% | #35 | 1,852 | 1 | 32 | 2009 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #407 | 1,571 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2002 | 26–24 | 52.0% | #34 | 1,756 | 1 | 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2003 | 29–21 | 58.0% | #18 | 1,756 | 1 | 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2004 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #42 | 1,772 | 1 | 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2005 | 29–19 | 60.4% | #31 | 1,812 | 1 | 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |