H2H data updated: 2026-09-14 00:00 UTC
Kim Clijsters holds an 8–7 lead over Amélie Mauresmo in their WTA head-to-head. Across 15 main-draw meetings, they are tied 7–7 on hard courts, while Kim Clijsters leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Amélie Mauresmo won the 2007 Antwerp final 6-4 7-6(4).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
| Player | Score | Player | Match Data | Date | Round | Tournament | Category | Surface |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amélie Mauresmo | 6-4 7-6(4) | Kim Clijsters | Match data | Feb 18, 2007* | F | Antwerp | Tier II → modern equivalent WTA 500 | Hard |
| Amélie Mauresmo | 6-2 3-6 6-3 | Kim Clijsters | Match data | Nov 12, 2006* | SF | WTA Finals | WTA Finals | Hard |
| Amélie Mauresmo | 3-6 6-3 6-3 | Kim Clijsters | Match data | Feb 19, 2006* | F | Antwerp | Tier II → modern equivalent WTA 500 | Hard |
| Amélie Mauresmo | 5-7 6-2 3-2 (ret.) | Kim Clijsters | Match data | Jan 27, 2006* | SF | Australian Open | Grand Slam | Hard |
| Amélie Mauresmo | 6-3 7-6(4) | Kim Clijsters | Match data | Nov 7, 2005 | RR | WTA Finals | WTA Finals | Hard |
| Kim Clijsters | 6-1 6-0 | Amélie Mauresmo | Match data | Mar 28, 2005* | SF | Miami Open | Tier I → modern equivalent WTA 1000 | Hard |
| Kim Clijsters | 6-2 6-0 | Amélie Mauresmo | Match data | Nov 13, 2003* | F | WTA Finals | WTA Finals | Hard |
| Kim Clijsters | 3-6 6-4 6-4 | Amélie Mauresmo | Match data | Nov 5, 2003 | RR | WTA Finals | WTA Finals | Hard |
| Kim Clijsters | 6-4 6-3 | Amélie Mauresmo | Match data | Oct 11, 2003* | QF | Porsche Tennis Grand Prix | Tier II → modern equivalent WTA 500 | Hard |
| Kim Clijsters | 6-1 6-4 | Amélie Mauresmo | Match data | Sep 4, 2003* | QF | US Open | Grand Slam | Hard |
| Kim Clijsters | 3-6 7-6(3) 6-0 | Amélie Mauresmo | Match data | May 18, 2003* | F | Italian Open | Tier I → modern equivalent WTA 1000 | Clay |
| Kim Clijsters | 3-6 6-3 7-5 | Amélie Mauresmo | Match data | Oct 12, 2002* | SF | Porsche Tennis Grand Prix | Tier II → modern equivalent WTA 500 | Hard |
| Amélie Mauresmo | 4-6 6-3 7-5 | Kim Clijsters | Match data | Sep 3, 2002* | R16 | US Open | Grand Slam | Hard |
| Kim Clijsters | 3-0 (ret.) | Amélie Mauresmo | Match data | Mar 15, 2000* | R64 | Indian Wells Open | Tier I → modern equivalent WTA 1000 | Hard |
| Amélie Mauresmo | 6-3 6-3 | Kim Clijsters | Match data | Oct 24, 1999* | F | Bratislava | Tier IV → modern equivalent WTA 250 | Hard |
Estimated match date where the exact historical date is unavailable. Arrows show an edition's recorded category and documented modern equivalent; unresolved editions keep their recorded category. Asterisked totals include editions mapped from documented historical predecessor categories. Mapping details.
| Player | Current | Peak | Pts | Elo | W | L | Win % | GS | 1000 including documented historical predecessor categories | Finals | 500 including documented historical predecessor categories | 250 including documented historical predecessor categories | Titles |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kim Clijsters | #1,140 | #1 | 8,895 | 2,299 | 466 | 128 | 78.5% | 4 | 7 | 3 | 18 | 9 | 41 |
| Amélie Mauresmo | #21 | #1 | 4,992 | 2,225 | 463 | 185 | 71.5% | 2 | 6 | 1 | 15 | 1 | 25 |
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 | Kim Clijsters | 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 | 1999 | 16–7 | 69.6% | #46 | 1,724 | 0 | 1 | 1996 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #180 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2000 | 28–15 | 65.1% | #18 | 1,913 | 0 | 3 | 1997 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #100 | 1,556 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2001 | 54–19 | 74.0% | #5 | 2,036 | 0 | 6 | 1998 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #29 | 1,728 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2002 | 50–17 | 74.6% | #4 | 2,146 | 0 | 10 | 1999 | 32–14 | 69.6% | #10 | 1,911 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 2003 | 86–12 | 87.8% | #2 | 2,261 | 0 | 19 | 2000 | 26–13 | 66.7% | #16 | 1,906 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 2004 | 18–4 | 81.8% | #22 | 2,246 | 0 | 21 | 2001 | 43–12 | 78.2% | #9 | 2,022 | 0 | 6 |
| 22 | 2005 | 66–9 | 88.0% | #2 | 2,234 | 1 | 30 | 2002 | 45–15 | 75.0% | #6 | 2,061 | 0 | 8 |
| 23 | 2006 | 41–12 | 77.4% | #5 | 2,165 | 1 | 33 | 2003 | 45–17 | 72.6% | #4 | 2,065 | 0 | 10 |
| 24 | 2007 | 14–4 | 77.8% | #5 | 2,128 | 1 | 34 | 2004 | 61–12 | 83.6% | #2 | 2,178 | 0 | 15 |
| 25 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 53–16 | 76.8% | #3 | 2,133 | 0 | 19 |
| 26 | 2009 | 13–3 | 81.2% | #18 | 2,140 | 2 | 35 | 2006 | 50–14 | 78.1% | #3 | 2,165 | 2 | 23 |
| 27 | 2010 | 39–7 | 84.8% | #3 | 2,189 | 3 | 40 | 2007 | 27–14 | 65.9% | #18 | 1,972 | 2 | 24 |
| 28 | 2011 | 21–7 | 75.0% | #13 | 2,054 | 4 | 41 | 2008 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #24 | 1,820 | 2 | 24 |
| 29 | 2012 | 20–7 | 74.1% | #20 | 2,022 | 4 | 41 | 2009 | 25–12 | 67.6% | #21 | 1,873 | 2 | 25 |
| 37 | 2020 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #1030 | 1,956 | 4 | 41 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2021 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #1154 | 1,908 | 4 | 41 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
Seasons are aligned by the age each player spent most of that calendar year. Results cover completed main-draw matches. Bold green marks the higher win percentage when both players have at least 5 matches on that surface at the aligned age.
| Age | Kim Clijsters | Amélie Mauresmo | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | Hard | Clay | Grass | Carpet | Yr | Hard | Clay | Grass | Carpet | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| W | L | M | Win % | W | L | M | Win % | W | L | M | Win % | W | L | M | Win % | W | L | M | Win % | W | L | M | Win % | W | L | M | Win % | W | L | M | Win % | |||
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | — | — | — | — | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.0% | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1999 | 6 | 2 | 8 | 75.0% | 2 | 2 | 4 | 50.0% | 3 | 1 | 4 | 75.0% | 5 | 2 | 7 | 71.4% | 1996 | — | — | — | — | 1 | 1 | 2 | 50.0% | 1 | 1 | 2 | 50.0% | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2000 | 17 | 9 | 26 | 65.4% | 1 | 2 | 3 | 33.3% | 2 | 2 | 4 | 50.0% | 8 | 2 | 10 | 80.0% | 1997 | — | — | — | — | 3 | 3 | 6 | 50.0% | — | — | — | — | 1 | 3 | 4 | 25.0% |
| 18 | 2001 | 32 | 12 | 44 | 72.7% | 11 | 5 | 16 | 68.8% | 7 | 2 | 9 | 77.8% | 4 | 0 | 4 | 100.0% | 1998 | 9 | 7 | 16 | 56.3% | 8 | 6 | 14 | 57.1% | 1 | 2 | 3 | 33.3% | 2 | 3 | 5 | 40.0% |
| 19 | 2002 | 37 | 11 | 48 | 77.1% | 9 | 3 | 12 | 75.0% | 2 | 2 | 4 | 50.0% | 2 | 1 | 3 | 66.7% | 1999 | 19 | 7 | 26 | 73.1% | 7 | 4 | 11 | 63.6% | — | — | — | — | 6 | 3 | 9 | 66.7% |
| 20 | 2003 | 57 | 7 | 64 | 89.1% | 15 | 2 | 17 | 88.2% | 9 | 1 | 10 | 90.0% | 5 | 2 | 7 | 71.4% | 2000 | 8 | 5 | 13 | 61.5% | 13 | 4 | 17 | 76.5% | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.0% | 5 | 3 | 8 | 62.5% |
| 21 | 2004 | 13 | 3 | 16 | 81.3% | 1 | 1 | 2 | 50.0% | — | — | — | — | 4 | 0 | 4 | 100.0% | 2001 | 15 | 7 | 22 | 68.2% | 16 | 3 | 19 | 84.2% | 2 | 1 | 3 | 66.7% | 10 | 1 | 11 | 90.9% |
| 22 | 2005 | 50 | 5 | 55 | 90.9% | 8 | 3 | 11 | 72.7% | 8 | 1 | 9 | 88.9% | — | — | — | — | 2002 | 25 | 5 | 30 | 83.3% | 7 | 5 | 12 | 58.3% | 7 | 2 | 9 | 77.8% | 6 | 3 | 9 | 66.7% |
| 23 | 2006 | 24 | 8 | 32 | 75.0% | 10 | 2 | 12 | 83.3% | 7 | 2 | 9 | 77.8% | — | — | — | — | 2003 | 23 | 11 | 34 | 67.6% | 15 | 3 | 18 | 83.3% | 1 | 1 | 2 | 50.0% | 6 | 2 | 8 | 75.0% |
| 24 | 2007 | 14 | 3 | 17 | 82.4% | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.0% | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 35 | 7 | 42 | 83.3% | 19 | 3 | 22 | 86.4% | 7 | 2 | 9 | 77.8% | — | — | — | — |
| 25 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 36 | 10 | 46 | 78.3% | 9 | 2 | 11 | 81.8% | 5 | 2 | 7 | 71.4% | 3 | 2 | 5 | 60.0% |
| 26 | 2009 | 13 | 3 | 16 | 81.3% | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 32 | 10 | 42 | 76.2% | 6 | 2 | 8 | 75.0% | 7 | 1 | 8 | 87.5% | 5 | 1 | 6 | 83.3% |
| 27 | 2010 | 32 | 4 | 36 | 88.9% | 1 | 1 | 2 | 50.0% | 6 | 2 | 8 | 75.0% | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 13 | 7 | 20 | 65.0% | 6 | 4 | 10 | 60.0% | 6 | 2 | 8 | 75.0% | 2 | 1 | 3 | 66.7% |
| 28 | 2011 | 16 | 4 | 20 | 80.0% | 1 | 1 | 2 | 50.0% | 1 | 1 | 2 | 50.0% | 3 | 1 | 4 | 75.0% | 2008 | 21 | 14 | 35 | 60.0% | 4 | 2 | 6 | 66.7% | 3 | 2 | 5 | 60.0% | 2 | 1 | 3 | 66.7% |
| 29 | 2012 | 11 | 4 | 15 | 73.3% | — | — | — | — | 9 | 3 | 12 | 75.0% | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 12 | 7 | 19 | 63.2% | 4 | 3 | 7 | 57.1% | 4 | 2 | 6 | 66.7% | 5 | 0 | 5 | 100.0% |
| 37 | 2020 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0.0% | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2021 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.0% | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Career | — | 322 | 80 | 402 | 80.1% | 59 | 23 | 82 | 72.0% | 54 | 17 | 71 | 76.1% | 31 | 8 | 39 | 79.5% | — | 248 | 97 | 345 | 71.9% | 118 | 46 | 164 | 72.0% | 44 | 19 | 63 | 69.8% | 53 | 23 | 76 | 69.7% |
Seasons are aligned by the age each player spent most of that calendar year. Detailed serve and return statistics available for 201/388 of Kim Clijsters's and 222/395 of Amélie Mauresmo's main draw matches. Sample is shown as matches with detailed serve and return statistics / total main draw matches. Bold green marks the stronger value when both stat samples contain at least 5 matches; lower is better for DFs/M.
| Age | Kim Clijsters | Amélie Mauresmo | ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | Sample | Aces/M | DFs/M | 1st Sv% | 1st Pts% | 2nd Pts% | BP Saved% | BP Conv% | Svc Pts% | Ret Pts% | Yr | Sample | Aces/M | DFs/M | 1st Sv% | 1st Pts% | 2nd Pts% | BP Saved% | BP Conv% | Svc Pts% | Ret Pts% | |
| 20 | 2003 | 20/98 | 2.1 | 2.5 | 66.4% | 70.7% | 49.9% | 61.6% | 57.5% | 64.3% | 52.7% | — | —/— | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2004 | 7/22 | 1.0 | 4.7 | 61.9% | 68.5% | 52.6% | 58.8% | 62.8% | 62.3% | 53.8% | — | —/— | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2005 | 21/75 | 2.8 | 4.3 | 62.2% | 71.7% | 47.9% | 48.4% | 54.4% | 62.6% | 51.1% | — | —/— | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 23 | 2006 | 32/53 | 2.0 | 3.3 | 64.2% | 67.8% | 47.9% | 60.1% | 49.3% | 60.7% | 49.1% | 2003 | 10/62 | 2.3 | 2.9 | 63.3% | 73.3% | 50.3% | 41.3% | 41.8% | 65.2% | 48.3% |
| 24 | 2007 | 13/18 | 1.8 | 4.6 | 60.4% | 68.1% | 53.6% | 46.8% | 48.2% | 62.7% | 49.3% | 2004 | 18/73 | 4.5 | 4.4 | 58.2% | 74.6% | 52.0% | 54.6% | 50.2% | 65.2% | 51.1% |
| 25 | — | —/— | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 24/69 | 3.2 | 4.3 | 58.0% | 72.7% | 50.1% | 57.2% | 55.5% | 63.0% | 47.6% |
| 26 | 2009 | 16/16 | 2.8 | 4.1 | 63.0% | 69.2% | 54.9% | 62.5% | 54.3% | 63.7% | 48.5% | 2006 | 55/64 | 2.6 | 2.9 | 64.8% | 68.0% | 49.1% | 60.4% | 53.9% | 61.2% | 47.1% |
| 27 | 2010 | 42/46 | 2.9 | 4.5 | 62.0% | 69.3% | 51.6% | 61.4% | 53.0% | 62.6% | 50.3% | 2007 | 36/41 | 4.4 | 4.8 | 61.2% | 69.9% | 45.6% | 56.1% | 53.4% | 60.6% | 45.7% |
| 28 | 2011 | 27/28 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 64.0% | 67.6% | 46.2% | 56.0% | 52.0% | 60.1% | 50.0% | 2008 | 45/49 | 3.3 | 6.3 | 61.4% | 67.4% | 43.0% | 56.0% | 51.2% | 57.9% | 47.5% |
| 29 | 2012 | 18/27 | 2.5 | 3.4 | 66.3% | 71.8% | 49.0% | 57.8% | 43.7% | 64.1% | 47.1% | 2009 | 34/37 | 4.0 | 5.5 | 60.2% | 67.0% | 45.7% | 55.9% | 48.6% | 58.9% | 45.1% |
| 37 | 2020 | 3/3 | 5.3 | 6.7 | 66.9% | 62.7% | 44.2% | 61.9% | 30.0% | 56.2% | 32.9% | — | —/— | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2021 | 2/2 | 2.0 | 9.0 | 63.1% | 58.9% | 37.9% | 49.2% | 41.7% | 51.0% | 42.3% | — | —/— | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Career | — | 201/594 | 2.4 | 4.1 | 63.5% | 69.1% | 49.7% | 57.7% | 51.7% | 62.1% | 49.7% | — | 222/648 | 3.5 | 4.6 | 61.5% | 69.3% | 47.2% | 56.4% | 51.8% | 60.8% | 47.1% |
Seasons are aligned by the age each player spent most of that calendar year. Metrics use eligible main-draw results; point statistics use matches with detailed data. Bold green marks the stronger value when both underlying samples are sufficient. Lower is better for Schedule because a negative value means a tougher schedule. Career Schedule is normalized per 100 matches.
| Age | Kim Clijsters | Amélie Mauresmo | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | Elo | P+ | Serve+ | Return+ | PD | TPW% | Hard Elo | Clay Elo | Grass Elo | Set Win % | Set Margin | Dec. Set | Tiebreak | Pressure+ | Schedule | Yr | Elo | P+ | Serve+ | Return+ | PD | TPW% | Hard Elo | Clay Elo | Grass Elo | Set Win % | Set Margin | Dec. Set | Tiebreak | Pressure+ | Schedule | |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 1488 | 98.9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 33.3% | -1.00 | 0–1 | — | — | +0.12 |
| 16 | 1999 | 1725 | 145.5 | — | — | — | — | -30 | -155 | -56 | 67.3% | +1.53 | 2–3 (40%) | 0–2 | — | -0.43 | 1996 | 1523 | 102.5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 50.0% | -0.20 | 1–1 | — | — | +0.03 |
| 17 | 2000 | 1913 | 156.2 | — | — | — | — | +15 | -370 | -218 | 60.2% | +0.62 | 11–8 (58%) | 8–2 (80%) | 107.4 | -1.40 | 1997 | 1556 | 126.4 | — | — | — | — | -24 | +36 | — | 48.0% | -0.08 | 1–4 (20%) | 1–2 (33%) | 97.2 | -0.06 |
| 18 | 2001 | 2036 | 161.2 | — | — | — | — | +15 | -316 | -171 | 69.3% | +1.43 | 15–7 (68%) | 7–2 (78%) | 111.5 | -0.33 | 1998 | 1729 | 146.0 | — | — | — | — | -83 | 0 | -114 | 51.2% | +0.12 | 5–3 (63%) | 5–4 (56%) | 107.0 | -0.59 |
| 19 | 2002 | 2146 | 168.0 | — | — | — | — | +28 | -315 | -318 | 69.1% | +1.50 | 12–9 (57%) | 5–6 (45%) | 100.6 | -1.80 | 1999 | 1912 | 159.1 | — | — | — | — | -27 | -138 | — | 61.2% | +0.73 | 12–5 (71%) | 5–5 (50%) | 109.0 | +1.67 |
| 20 | 2003 | 2262 | 176.5 | +7.01 | +7.29 | 1.478 | 58.4% | +19 | -206 | -246 | 83.9% | +2.65 | 12–7 (63%) | 5–1 (83%) | 104.0 | -2.52 | 2000 | 1907 | 163.5 | — | — | — | — | -30 | +17 | — | 64.6% | +1.38 | 5–7 (42%) | 4–7 (36%) | 93.9 | -1.71 |
| 21 | 2004 | 2247 | 155.4 | +3.47 | +3.81 | 1.426 | 57.9% | +5 | — | — | 90.2% | +2.95 | 2–1 (67%) | 4–0 (100%) | 102.2 | -0.05 | 2001 | 2023 | 167.1 | — | — | — | — | -34 | +99 | -402 | 70.7% | +1.41 | 14–3 (82%) | 10–3 (77%) | 113.0 | -2.74 |
| 22 | 2005 | 2235 | 173.2 | +5.59 | +5.46 | 1.367 | 56.6% | +51 | -182 | -131 | 85.4% | +2.89 | 7–5 (58%) | 4–5 (44%) | 97.3 | -0.64 | 2002 | 2062 | 162.6 | — | — | — | — | +32 | -20 | -255 | 74.0% | +1.75 | 6–7 (46%) | 10–5 (67%) | 98.8 | -0.13 |
| 23 | 2006 | 2166 | 165.9 | +5.11 | +5.07 | 1.249 | 54.5% | +47 | -71 | -23 | 75.2% | +1.82 | 9–4 (69%) | 6–2 (75%) | 101.0 | -2.33 | 2003 | 2065 | 163.0 | +5.99 | +3.35 | 1.388 | 56.1% | +3 | +92 | — | 69.4% | +1.11 | 13–5 (72%) | 13–2 (87%) | 108.6 | -2.28 |
| 24 | 2007 | 2128 | 161.0 | +4.97 | +3.93 | 1.322 | 55.5% | +66 | — | — | 70.7% | +1.95 | 4–1 (80%) | 1–2 (33%) | 99.6 | +0.04 | 2004 | 2178 | 168.3 | +7.28 | +5.47 | 1.468 | 57.6% | +1 | +37 | -262 | 78.5% | +2.20 | 14–6 (70%) | 8–5 (62%) | 104.3 | -0.48 |
| 25 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 2133 | 167.1 | +5.80 | +3.65 | 1.286 | 55.4% | +23 | +95 | -185 | 72.0% | +1.48 | 10–6 (63%) | 7–2 (78%) | 102.5 | -0.83 |
| 26 | 2009 | 2141 | 159.8 | +6.04 | +5.04 | 1.334 | 55.9% | +56 | — | — | 73.7% | +1.87 | 4–2 (67%) | 0–1 | — | -1.42 | 2006 | 2166 | 170.3 | +5.44 | +4.78 | 1.215 | 54.1% | +18 | +5 | -62 | 70.5% | +1.49 | 15–4 (79%) | 8–3 (73%) | 108.7 | -3.85 |
| 27 | 2010 | 2190 | 168.6 | +6.21 | +7.25 | 1.348 | 56.4% | +54 | — | -96 | 76.2% | +2.15 | 11–4 (73%) | 6–4 (60%) | 103.3 | -2.07 | 2007 | 1973 | 149.7 | +4.23 | +2.32 | 1.159 | 53.0% | +81 | +133 | +141 | 63.4% | +1.04 | 6–9 (40%) | 6–8 (43%) | 89.6 | -1.04 |
| 28 | 2011 | 2055 | 151.4 | +3.98 | +4.33 | 1.252 | 54.8% | +97 | — | — | 72.9% | +1.73 | 6–1 (86%) | 6–2 (75%) | 101.4 | +0.06 | 2008 | 1820 | 135.6 | +2.15 | +2.79 | 1.128 | 52.5% | +25 | +198 | +234 | 56.9% | +0.66 | 14–8 (64%) | 8–9 (47%) | 94.5 | +0.52 |
| 29 | 2012 | 2023 | 145.0 | +6.00 | +3.05 | 1.314 | 55.0% | +75 | — | +54 | 73.6% | +1.85 | 4–1 (80%) | 3–4 (43%) | 99.1 | -0.72 | 2009 | 1873 | 146.4 | +3.25 | +2.00 | 1.095 | 52.0% | +15 | +92 | +120 | 61.4% | +0.83 | 12–4 (75%) | 5–5 (50%) | 103.7 | -1.60 |
| 37 | 2020 | 1956 | 116.1 | +0.27 | +0.94 | 0.751 | 45.5% | +63 | — | — | 14.3% | -2.00 | 0–1 | 0–1 | — | -0.43 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2021 | 1908 | 106.1 | +0.32 | -1.68 | 0.864 | 46.7% | — | — | — | 33.3% | -1.50 | 0–2 | — | — | -0.16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Career | — | 2299 | 172.4 | +5.39 | +5.26 | 1.313 | 55.7% | +36 | -226 | -114 | 74.6% | +1.92 | 99–56 (64%) | 55–34 (62%) | 106.7 | -2.42 | — | 2226 | 166.5 | +4.45 | +3.42 | 1.200 | 53.8% | +5 | +46 | -86 | 66.9% | +1.23 | 128–73 (64%) | 90–60 (60%) | 108.0 | -2.04 |
Each player's five most-played main-draw opponents. The current matchup is highlighted when it appears in a player's top five.
| Opponent | W | L | M | Last Played | H2H |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justine Henin | 13 | 10 | 23 | Jun 29, 2010 | H2H |
| Lindsay Davenport | 9 | 8 | 17 | Jun 28, 2005 | H2H |
| Amélie Mauresmo | 8 | 7 | 15 | Feb 18, 2007 | H2H |
| Francesca Schiavone | 12 | 1 | 13 | Jun 23, 2012 | H2H |
| Venus Williams | 7 | 6 | 13 | Sep 11, 2010 | H2H |
| Opponent | W | L | M | Last Played | H2H |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patty Schnyder | 13 | 5 | 18 | Aug 22, 2008 | H2H |
| Lindsay Davenport | 4 | 14 | 18 | Sep 23, 2006 | H2H |
| Elena Dementieva | 11 | 5 | 16 | May 14, 2009 | H2H |
| Kim Clijsters | 7 | 8 | 15 | Feb 18, 2007 | H2H |
| Justine Henin | 6 | 8 | 14 | Jun 24, 2007 | H2H |