H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Jelena Dokic vs Amélie Mauresmo H2H: 1-3
Amélie Mauresmo holds a 3–1 lead over Jelena Dokic in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on clay, while Amélie Mauresmo leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Amélie Mauresmo won the 2009 Brisbane third round 7-6(9) 7-6(5).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
AUS
Age 43
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H
1
–
3
4 main draw meetings
FRA
Age 47
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 8, 2009* | Brisbane | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Amélie Mauresmo | 7-6(9) 7-6(5) | Jelena Dokic | Match data |
| May 3, 2003* | Warsaw | WTA 500 | SF | Clay | Amélie Mauresmo | 7-5 6-2 | Jelena Dokic | Match data |
| May 20, 2001* | Rome | WTA 1000 | F | Clay | Jelena Dokic | 7-6(3) 6-1 | Amélie Mauresmo | Match data |
| Oct 24, 2000* | Moscow | WTA 1000 | R32 | Carpet | Amélie Mauresmo | 6-1 6-4 | Jelena Dokic | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jelena Dokic | #945 | #4 | 3,338 | 2,031 | 208 | 175 | 54.3% | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 6 |
| 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 | Jelena Dokic | Amélie Mauresmo | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1998 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #349 | 1,497 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #250 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 1999 | 11–10 | 52.4% | #43 | 1,629 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #180 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2000 | 28–19 | 59.6% | #24 | 1,769 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #100 | 1,555 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2001 | 53–23 | 69.7% | #8 | 1,999 | 0 | 3 | 1998 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #29 | 1,729 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2002 | 53–27 | 66.2% | #9 | 1,897 | 0 | 5 | 1999 | 32–14 | 69.6% | #10 | 1,914 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 2003 | 28–30 | 48.3% | #15 | 1,778 | 0 | 5 | 2000 | 26–12 | 68.4% | #16 | 1,932 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 2004 | 7–16 | 30.4% | #124 | 1,582 | 0 | 5 | 2001 | 43–12 | 78.2% | #9 | 2,029 | 0 | 6 |
| 22 | 2005 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #349 | 1,525 | 0 | 5 | 2002 | 45–15 | 75.0% | #6 | 2,060 | 0 | 8 |
| 23 | 2006 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #587 | 1,499 | 0 | 5 | 2003 | 45–17 | 72.6% | #4 | 2,061 | 0 | 10 |
| 24 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 56–11 | 83.6% | #2 | 2,175 | 0 | 15 |
| 25 | 2008 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #179 | 1,480 | 0 | 5 | 2005 | 53–16 | 76.8% | #3 | 2,127 | 0 | 19 |
| 26 | 2009 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #56 | 1,527 | 0 | 5 | 2006 | 50–14 | 78.1% | #3 | 2,135 | 2 | 23 |
| 27 | 2010 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #138 | 1,513 | 0 | 5 | 2007 | 27–14 | 65.9% | #18 | 1,960 | 2 | 24 |
| 28 | 2011 | 15–16 | 48.4% | #66 | 1,592 | 0 | 6 | 2008 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #24 | 1,815 | 2 | 24 |
| 29 | 2012 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #258 | 1,516 | 0 | 6 | 2009 | 25–12 | 67.6% | #21 | 1,871 | 2 | 25 |