H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Janet Lee vs Samantha Reeves H2H: 2-0
Janet Lee holds a 2–0 lead over Samantha Reeves in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Janet Lee leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Janet Lee won the 1999 Tokyo third round 6-2 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.
TPE
Age 49
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
USA
Age 47
Right-Handed
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 15, 1999* | Tokyo | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Janet Lee | 6-2 6-2 | Samantha Reeves | Match data |
| Jan 22, 1999* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Janet Lee | 7-5 6-1 | Samantha Reeves | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Janet Lee | #863 | #79 | 390 | 1,560 | 31 | 67 | 31.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Samantha Reeves | #864 | #62 | 523 | 1,629 | 30 | 59 | 33.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Janet Lee | Samantha Reeves | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 1993 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #547 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1994 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #270 | 1,508 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1995 | 4–7 | 36.4% | #169 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1996 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #175 | 1,514 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 2–8 | 20.0% | #111 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1997 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #114 | 1,526 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #121 | 1,480 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1998 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #86 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #171 | 1,447 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1999 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #95 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #106 | 1,515 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2000 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #117 | 1,513 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 8–14 | 36.4% | #108 | 1,545 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2001 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #111 | 1,544 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 8–10 | 44.4% | #74 | 1,588 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2002 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #217 | 1,515 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 3–12 | 20.0% | #198 | 1,527 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2003 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #162 | 1,504 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2005 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #694 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |