H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Conchita Martínez vs Nicole Pratt H2H: 2-1
Conchita Martínez holds a 2–1 lead over Nicole Pratt in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while Conchita Martínez leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Nicole Pratt won the 2003 Los Angeles fourth round 4-6 6-4 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
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
AUS
Age 53
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 8, 2003* | Los Angeles | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Nicole Pratt | 4-6 6-4 6-4 | Conchita Martínez | Match data |
| Apr 20, 2001* | Charleston | WTA 1000 | R16 | Clay | Conchita Martínez | 6-2 6-3 | Nicole Pratt | Match data |
| Aug 4, 2000* | San Diego | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Conchita Martínez | 4-6 6-0 6-3 | Nicole Pratt | 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 Pratt | #1,043 | #35 | 924 | 1,764 | 156 | 217 | 41.8% | 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 | Nicole Pratt | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1990 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #201 | 1,497 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1990 | 38–10 | 79.2% | #11 | 2,063 | 0 | 7 | 1991 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #201 | 1,469 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1991 | 36–12 | 75.0% | #9 | 2,076 | 0 | 10 | 1992 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #203 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1992 | 44–16 | 73.3% | #8 | 2,054 | 0 | 11 | 1993 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #172 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1993 | 66–13 | 83.5% | #4 | 2,158 | 0 | 16 | 1994 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #224 | 1,465 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1994 | 51–14 | 78.5% | #3 | 2,065 | 1 | 20 | 1995 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #214 | 1,451 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1995 | 57–10 | 85.1% | #2 | 2,182 | 1 | 26 | 1996 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #194 | 1,434 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1996 | 44–16 | 73.3% | #4 | 2,074 | 1 | 28 | 1997 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #110 | 1,494 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1997 | 37–19 | 66.1% | #12 | 2,011 | 1 | 28 | 1998 | 4–13 | 23.5% | #113 | 1,464 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1998 | 38–16 | 70.4% | #8 | 1,968 | 1 | 30 | 1999 | 15–17 | 46.9% | #56 | 1,598 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1999 | 38–22 | 63.3% | #15 | 1,898 | 1 | 31 | 2000 | 16–23 | 41.0% | #54 | 1,621 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2000 | 48–19 | 71.6% | #5 | 1,951 | 1 | 32 | 2001 | 22–23 | 48.9% | #51 | 1,704 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2001 | 19–13 | 59.4% | #35 | 1,852 | 1 | 32 | 2002 | 23–20 | 53.5% | #48 | 1,719 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2002 | 26–24 | 52.0% | #34 | 1,756 | 1 | 32 | 2003 | 17–23 | 42.5% | #53 | 1,646 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2003 | 29–21 | 58.0% | #18 | 1,756 | 1 | 32 | 2004 | 19–21 | 47.5% | #50 | 1,604 | 0 | 1 |
| 32 | 2004 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #42 | 1,772 | 1 | 32 | 2005 | 8–17 | 32.0% | #126 | 1,544 | 0 | 1 |
| 33 | 2005 | 29–19 | 60.4% | #31 | 1,812 | 1 | 33 | 2006 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #77 | 1,546 | 0 | 1 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #70 | 1,566 | 0 | 1 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #1043 | 1,545 | 0 | 1 |