H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Elena Vesnina vs Amélie Mauresmo H2H: 1-1
Elena Vesnina and Amélie Mauresmo are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Amélie Mauresmo leads 1–0 on carpet, while Elena Vesnina leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Elena Vesnina won the 2009 New Haven semifinal 5-7 6-1 6-2.
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 39
Right-Handed
176 cm / 5'9"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
FRA
Age 47
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 29, 2009* | New Haven | WTA 500 | SF | Hard | Elena Vesnina | 5-7 6-1 6-2 | Amélie Mauresmo | Match data |
| Oct 13, 2006* | Moscow | WTA 1000 | R16 | Carpet | Amélie Mauresmo | 5-7 6-3 7-6(3) | Elena Vesnina | 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 Vesnina | #573 | #13 | 3,320 | 1,858 | 262 | 260 | 50.2% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Amélie Mauresmo | #21 | #1 | 4,992 | 2,217 | 458 | 183 | 71.5% | 2 | 6 | 1 | 15 | 1 | 25 |
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 Vesnina | Amélie Mauresmo | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #250 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1996 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #180 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2004 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #259 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #100 | 1,555 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2005 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #106 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #29 | 1,729 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2006 | 20–24 | 45.5% | #47 | 1,617 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 32–14 | 69.6% | #10 | 1,914 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 2007 | 17–21 | 44.7% | #54 | 1,631 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 26–12 | 68.4% | #16 | 1,932 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 2008 | 12–19 | 38.7% | #79 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 43–12 | 78.2% | #9 | 2,029 | 0 | 6 |
| 22 | 2009 | 31–20 | 60.8% | #23 | 1,767 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 45–15 | 75.0% | #6 | 2,060 | 0 | 8 |
| 23 | 2010 | 22–22 | 50.0% | #52 | 1,720 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 45–17 | 72.6% | #4 | 2,061 | 0 | 10 |
| 24 | 2011 | 19–21 | 47.5% | #57 | 1,689 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 56–11 | 83.6% | #2 | 2,175 | 0 | 15 |
| 25 | 2012 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #68 | 1,701 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 53–16 | 76.8% | #3 | 2,127 | 0 | 19 |
| 26 | 2013 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #25 | 1,801 | 0 | 2 | 2006 | 50–14 | 78.1% | #3 | 2,135 | 2 | 23 |
| 27 | 2014 | 16–17 | 48.5% | #64 | 1,689 | 0 | 2 | 2007 | 27–14 | 65.9% | #18 | 1,960 | 2 | 24 |
| 28 | 2015 | 11–17 | 39.3% | #115 | 1,609 | 0 | 2 | 2008 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #24 | 1,815 | 2 | 24 |
| 29 | 2016 | 28–16 | 63.6% | #16 | 1,778 | 0 | 2 | 2009 | 25–12 | 67.6% | #21 | 1,871 | 2 | 25 |
| 30 | 2017 | 25–26 | 49.0% | #18 | 1,691 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2018 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #137 | 1,679 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2021 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #310 | 1,689 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |