H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Elena Dementieva vs Mary Pierce H2H: 2-2
Elena Dementieva and Mary Pierce are tied 2–2 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Mary Pierce leads 2–1 on hard courts, while Elena Dementieva leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Mary Pierce won the 2005 WTA Tour Championships round-robin match 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.
RUS
Age 44
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
2
–
2
4 main draw meetings
FRA
Age 51
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 7, 2005 | WTA Tour Championships | WTA Finals | RR | Hard | Mary Pierce | 6-2 6-3 | Elena Dementieva | Match data |
| Sep 9, 2005* | US Open | Grand Slam | SF | Hard | Mary Pierce | 3-6 6-2 6-2 | Elena Dementieva | Match data |
| Apr 4, 2003* | Sarasota | WTA 250 | R16 | Clay | Elena Dementieva | 3-6 6-1 6-2 | Mary Pierce | Match data |
| Mar 22, 2000* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Elena Dementieva | 6-3 2-1 (ret.) | Mary Pierce | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elena Dementieva | #10 | #3 | 8,286 | 2,108 | 472 | 243 | 66.0% | 0 | 3 | 0 | 9 | 3 | 15 |
| Mary Pierce | #560 | #3 | 3,797 | 2,137 | 460 | 215 | 68.1% | 2 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 8 | 18 |
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 | Elena Dementieva | Mary Pierce | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1989 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,480 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #349 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #107 | 1,543 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 1998 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #186 | 1,478 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 21–9 | 70.0% | #26 | 1,786 | 0 | 1 |
| 17 | 1999 | 11–11 | 50.0% | #62 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 31–9 | 77.5% | #13 | 1,901 | 0 | 4 |
| 18 | 2000 | 33–19 | 63.5% | #11 | 1,859 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 38–15 | 71.7% | #12 | 2,003 | 0 | 5 |
| 19 | 2001 | 34–22 | 60.7% | #15 | 1,833 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 43–16 | 72.9% | #5 | 2,053 | 0 | 5 |
| 20 | 2002 | 36–26 | 58.1% | #19 | 1,763 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 35–14 | 71.4% | #5 | 2,008 | 1 | 7 |
| 21 | 2003 | 47–25 | 65.3% | #8 | 1,966 | 0 | 3 | 1996 | 17–11 | 60.7% | #24 | 1,899 | 1 | 7 |
| 22 | 2004 | 40–22 | 64.5% | #6 | 1,986 | 0 | 4 | 1997 | 45–15 | 75.0% | #7 | 2,053 | 1 | 8 |
| 23 | 2005 | 41–22 | 65.1% | #8 | 1,925 | 0 | 4 | 1998 | 35–12 | 74.5% | #7 | 2,120 | 1 | 12 |
| 24 | 2006 | 45–21 | 68.2% | #8 | 1,908 | 0 | 6 | 1999 | 45–19 | 70.3% | #5 | 2,053 | 1 | 13 |
| 25 | 2007 | 41–18 | 69.5% | #11 | 1,964 | 0 | 8 | 2000 | 29–11 | 72.5% | #7 | 2,033 | 2 | 15 |
| 26 | 2008 | 50–17 | 74.6% | #4 | 2,014 | 0 | 10 | 2001 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #129 | 1,839 | 2 | 15 |
| 27 | 2009 | 55–18 | 75.3% | #5 | 1,981 | 0 | 13 | 2002 | 14–13 | 51.9% | #52 | 1,752 | 2 | 15 |
| 28 | 2010 | 39–19 | 67.2% | #9 | 1,928 | 0 | 15 | 2003 | 23–17 | 57.5% | #33 | 1,786 | 2 | 15 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 22–16 | 57.9% | #29 | 1,754 | 2 | 16 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 41–12 | 77.4% | #5 | 2,119 | 2 | 18 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 9–8 | 52.9% | #79 | 1,967 | 2 | 18 |