H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Conchita Martínez vs Nicole Bradtke H2H: 3-1
Conchita Martínez holds a 3–1 lead over Nicole Bradtke in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Conchita Martínez leads 2–1 on hard courts and 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Conchita Martínez won the 1992 Eastbourne third round 5-7 7-6 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.
ESP
Age 54
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
3
–
1
4 main draw meetings
AUS
Age 56
Right-Handed
176 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 18, 1992* | Eastbourne | WTA 250 | R32 | Grass | Conchita Martínez | 5-7 7-6 6-4 | Nicole Bradtke | Match data |
| Feb 28, 1992* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R16 | Hard | Conchita Martínez | 6-2 6-2 | Nicole Bradtke | Match data |
| Nov 7, 1991* | Brentwood | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Nicole Bradtke | 6-3 4-6 6-4 | Conchita Martínez | Match data |
| Nov 10, 1990* | Indianapolis | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Conchita Martínez | 6-2 6-2 | Nicole Bradtke | 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 |
| Nicole Bradtke | #394 | #24 | 256 | 1,868 | 181 | 162 | 52.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
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 | Nicole Bradtke | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1985 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #147 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 1988 | 14–6 | 70.0% | #41 | 1,730 | 0 | 1 | 1986 | 6–5 | 54.5% | #123 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1989 | 35–9 | 79.5% | #7 | 1,933 | 0 | 4 | 1987 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #78 | 1,600 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1990 | 38–10 | 79.2% | #11 | 2,063 | 0 | 7 | 1988 | 24–17 | 58.5% | #34 | 1,738 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1991 | 36–12 | 75.0% | #9 | 2,076 | 0 | 10 | 1989 | 16–17 | 48.5% | #61 | 1,710 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1992 | 44–16 | 73.3% | #8 | 2,054 | 0 | 11 | 1990 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #49 | 1,757 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1993 | 66–13 | 83.5% | #4 | 2,158 | 0 | 16 | 1991 | 21–19 | 52.5% | #45 | 1,760 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1994 | 51–14 | 78.5% | #3 | 2,065 | 1 | 20 | 1992 | 21–17 | 55.3% | #47 | 1,714 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 1995 | 57–10 | 85.1% | #2 | 2,182 | 1 | 26 | 1993 | 26–14 | 65.0% | #26 | 1,757 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 1996 | 44–16 | 73.3% | #4 | 2,074 | 1 | 28 | 1994 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #153 | 1,705 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 1997 | 37–19 | 66.1% | #12 | 2,011 | 1 | 28 | 1995 | 21–15 | 58.3% | #37 | 1,786 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 1998 | 38–16 | 70.4% | #8 | 1,968 | 1 | 30 | 1996 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #94 | 1,709 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 1999 | 38–22 | 63.3% | #15 | 1,898 | 1 | 31 | 1997 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #394 | 1,697 | 0 | 3 |
| 28 | 2000 | 48–19 | 71.6% | #5 | 1,951 | 1 | 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2001 | 19–13 | 59.4% | #35 | 1,852 | 1 | 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |