H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Elena Likhovtseva vs Amanda Coetzer H2H: 0-3
Amanda Coetzer holds a 3–0 lead over Elena Likhovtseva in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Amanda Coetzer leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Amanda Coetzer won the 1996 Madrid fourth round 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.
RUS
Age 50
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H
0
–
3
3 main draw meetings
RSA
Age 54
Right-Handed
158 cm / 5'2"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 25, 1996* | Madrid | WTA 1000 | R16 | Clay | Amanda Coetzer | 6-4 6-4 | Elena Likhovtseva | Match data |
| Jan 24, 1996* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R16 | Hard | Amanda Coetzer | 6-3 6-3 | Elena Likhovtseva | Match data |
| Jun 22, 1994* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R128 | Grass | Amanda Coetzer | 6-4 6-0 | Elena Likhovtseva | 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 Likhovtseva | #1,092 | #15 | 1,807 | 1,912 | 358 | 338 | 51.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Amanda Coetzer | #289 | #3 | 3,380 | 2,051 | 491 | 307 | 61.5% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 9 |
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 Likhovtseva | Amanda Coetzer | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1988 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #152 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1993 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #67 | 1,633 | 0 | 1 | 1989 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #63 | 1,675 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1994 | 17–19 | 47.2% | #62 | 1,736 | 0 | 1 | 1990 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #76 | 1,662 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1995 | 18–18 | 50.0% | #45 | 1,718 | 0 | 1 | 1991 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #68 | 1,686 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1996 | 30–21 | 58.8% | #18 | 1,819 | 0 | 1 | 1992 | 35–15 | 70.0% | #17 | 1,857 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1997 | 24–24 | 50.0% | #31 | 1,749 | 0 | 2 | 1993 | 42–18 | 70.0% | #15 | 1,991 | 0 | 2 |
| 22 | 1998 | 35–29 | 54.7% | #26 | 1,829 | 0 | 2 | 1994 | 38–19 | 66.7% | #18 | 1,885 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 1999 | 34–29 | 54.0% | #18 | 1,755 | 0 | 2 | 1995 | 31–22 | 58.5% | #19 | 1,910 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 2000 | 29–27 | 51.8% | #21 | 1,770 | 0 | 2 | 1996 | 31–20 | 60.8% | #14 | 1,863 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2001 | 25–24 | 51.0% | #36 | 1,746 | 0 | 2 | 1997 | 60–25 | 70.6% | #4 | 2,013 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 2002 | 24–27 | 47.1% | #42 | 1,666 | 0 | 2 | 1998 | 32–23 | 58.2% | #17 | 1,887 | 0 | 6 |
| 27 | 2003 | 26–26 | 50.0% | #37 | 1,678 | 0 | 2 | 1999 | 37–25 | 59.7% | #11 | 1,815 | 0 | 6 |
| 28 | 2004 | 26–24 | 52.0% | #24 | 1,828 | 0 | 3 | 2000 | 44–22 | 66.7% | #12 | 1,892 | 0 | 7 |
| 29 | 2005 | 30–22 | 57.7% | #17 | 1,795 | 0 | 3 | 2001 | 32–21 | 60.4% | #19 | 1,786 | 0 | 8 |
| 30 | 2006 | 16–20 | 44.4% | #43 | 1,695 | 0 | 3 | 2002 | 30–22 | 57.7% | #21 | 1,795 | 0 | 8 |
| 31 | 2007 | 13–17 | 43.3% | #62 | 1,665 | 0 | 3 | 2003 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #25 | 1,738 | 0 | 9 |
| 32 | 2008 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #1044 | 1,634 | 0 | 3 | 2004 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #286 | 1,718 | 0 | 9 |