H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Jelena Kostanic Tosic vs Meghann Shaughnessy H2H: 1-1
Jelena Kostanic Tosic and Meghann Shaughnessy are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Meghann Shaughnessy leads 1–0 on clay, while Jelena Kostanic Tosic leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Jelena Kostanic Tosic won the 2006 Guangzhou third 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.
CRO
Age 45
Left-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
USA
Age 47
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 28, 2006* | Guangzhou | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Jelena Kostanic Tosic | 6-4 6-4 | Meghann Shaughnessy | Match data |
| May 12, 2004* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Meghann Shaughnessy | 6-4 7-6(3) | Jelena Kostanic Tosic | 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 Kostanic Tosic | #937 | #32 | 900 | 1,726 | 112 | 151 | 42.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Meghann Shaughnessy | #1,104 | #11 | 1,949 | 1,888 | 233 | 233 | 50.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
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 Kostanic Tosic | Meghann Shaughnessy | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 1998 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #240 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1999 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #97 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #165 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2000 | 10–13 | 43.5% | #114 | 1,523 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #198 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2001 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #131 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 8–9 | 47.1% | #69 | 1,544 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2002 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #70 | 1,570 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 10–22 | 31.2% | #99 | 1,439 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2003 | 16–20 | 44.4% | #66 | 1,621 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 23–20 | 53.5% | #38 | 1,652 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2004 | 22–25 | 46.8% | #35 | 1,678 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 45–25 | 64.3% | #12 | 1,825 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2005 | 11–21 | 34.4% | #87 | 1,549 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 29–27 | 51.8% | #30 | 1,716 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 2006 | 19–18 | 51.4% | #51 | 1,577 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 32–23 | 58.2% | #17 | 1,725 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2007 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #103 | 1,534 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 20–22 | 47.6% | #40 | 1,663 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 2008 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #114 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 17–25 | 40.5% | #66 | 1,563 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 27–20 | 57.4% | #37 | 1,709 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2010 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #830 | 1,460 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 18–22 | 45.0% | #52 | 1,666 | 0 | 6 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #836 | 1,579 | 0 | 6 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #590 | 1,533 | 0 | 6 |