H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Gisela Dulko vs Mary Pierce H2H: 1-1
Gisela Dulko and Mary Pierce are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Mary Pierce leads 1–0 on clay, while Gisela Dulko leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Gisela Dulko won the 2004 San Diego third round 6-3 7-6(1).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
ARG
Age 41
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
FRA
Age 51
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 29, 2004* | San Diego | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Gisela Dulko | 6-3 7-6(1) | Mary Pierce | Match data |
| May 12, 2004* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Mary Pierce | 6-1 6-4 | Gisela Dulko | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gisela Dulko | #305 | #26 | 1,695 | 1,798 | 192 | 179 | 51.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| 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 | Gisela Dulko | 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1990 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #107 | 1,543 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #188 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 21–9 | 70.0% | #26 | 1,786 | 0 | 1 |
| 17 | 2002 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #154 | 1,528 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 31–9 | 77.5% | #13 | 1,901 | 0 | 4 |
| 18 | 2003 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #125 | 1,516 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 38–15 | 71.7% | #12 | 2,003 | 0 | 5 |
| 19 | 2004 | 22–18 | 55.0% | #33 | 1,713 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 43–16 | 72.9% | #5 | 2,053 | 0 | 5 |
| 20 | 2005 | 32–23 | 58.2% | #26 | 1,726 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 35–14 | 71.4% | #5 | 2,008 | 1 | 7 |
| 21 | 2006 | 16–23 | 41.0% | #59 | 1,573 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 17–11 | 60.7% | #24 | 1,899 | 1 | 7 |
| 22 | 2007 | 29–23 | 55.8% | #37 | 1,702 | 0 | 2 | 1997 | 45–15 | 75.0% | #7 | 2,053 | 1 | 8 |
| 23 | 2008 | 18–20 | 47.4% | #51 | 1,658 | 0 | 3 | 1998 | 35–12 | 74.5% | #7 | 2,120 | 1 | 12 |
| 24 | 2009 | 28–20 | 58.3% | #36 | 1,734 | 0 | 3 | 1999 | 45–19 | 70.3% | #5 | 2,053 | 1 | 13 |
| 25 | 2010 | 21–21 | 50.0% | #48 | 1,686 | 0 | 3 | 2000 | 29–11 | 72.5% | #7 | 2,033 | 2 | 15 |
| 26 | 2011 | 15–15 | 50.0% | #67 | 1,650 | 0 | 4 | 2001 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #129 | 1,839 | 2 | 15 |
| 27 | 2012 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #305 | 1,604 | 0 | 4 | 2002 | 14–13 | 51.9% | #52 | 1,752 | 2 | 15 |
| 28 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 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 |