H2H data updated: 2026-09-14 00:00 UTC

Lindsay Davenport vs Amélie Mauresmo H2H: 14-4 (incl. walkovers)

Lindsay Davenport vs Amélie Mauresmo: 12–4 excluding walkovers; 14–4 including 2 walkovers. Across 18 main-draw results including walkovers, Lindsay Davenport leads 11–3 on hard courts, while they are tied 1–1 on clay. Most recently, Amélie Mauresmo won the 2006 China Open quarterfinal 6-4 6-3.

Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.

Lindsay Davenport
USA Age 50 Right-Handed 189 cm / 6'2"
H2H including walkovers
14 – 4
18 main-draw results
Amélie Mauresmo
FRA Age 47 Right-Handed 175 cm / 5'9"

H2H Match Log

PlayerScorePlayerMatch DataDateRoundTournamentCategorySurface
Amélie Mauresmo #1 6-4 6-3 Lindsay Davenport #12 Match data Sep 23, 2006* QF China Open Tier II → modern equivalent WTA 500 Hard
Lindsay Davenport #11 6-4 7-5 Amélie Mauresmo #1 Match data Aug 26, 2006* QF New Haven Tier II → modern equivalent WTA 500 Hard
Lindsay Davenport #2 6-2 6-4 Amélie Mauresmo #4 Match data Oct 9, 2005* F Porsche Tennis Grand Prix Tier II → modern equivalent WTA 500 Hard
Lindsay Davenport #2 6-4 6-4 Amélie Mauresmo #3 Match data Aug 28, 2005* F New Haven Tier II → modern equivalent WTA 500 Hard
Lindsay Davenport #1 6-7(5) 7-6(4) 6-4 Amélie Mauresmo #3 Match data Jul 2, 2005* SF Wimbledon Grand Slam Grass
Lindsay Davenport #2 6-2 (ret.) Amélie Mauresmo #1 Match data Oct 10, 2004* F Porsche Tennis Grand Prix Tier II → modern equivalent WTA 500 Hard
Lindsay Davenport #4 6-4 6-4 Amélie Mauresmo #3 Match data Apr 11, 2004* F Amelia Island Tier II → modern equivalent WTA 500 Clay
Lindsay Davenport #7 (w/o) Amélie Mauresmo #8 Match data Mar 5, 2003 QF Indian Wells Open Tier I → modern equivalent WTA 1000 Hard
Lindsay Davenport #10 7-6(7) 6-3 Amélie Mauresmo #9 Match data Aug 24, 2002* QF New Haven Tier II → modern equivalent WTA 500 Hard
Lindsay Davenport #3 6-4 6-2 Amélie Mauresmo #6 Match data Oct 13, 2001* QF Porsche Tennis Grand Prix Tier II → modern equivalent WTA 500 Hard
Lindsay Davenport #3 6-4 6-4 Amélie Mauresmo #8 Match data Aug 24, 2001* QF New Haven Tier II → modern equivalent WTA 500 Hard
Lindsay Davenport #2 (w/o) Amélie Mauresmo #16 Match data Jan 12, 2001* SF Sydney International Tier II → modern equivalent WTA 500 Hard
Amélie Mauresmo #9 7-6(2) 6-4 Lindsay Davenport #2 Match data Jan 13, 2000* F Sydney International Tier II → modern equivalent WTA 500 Hard
Lindsay Davenport #2 3-6 6-3 6-2 Amélie Mauresmo #10 Match data Nov 15, 1999 R16 WTA Finals WTA Finals Carpet
Lindsay Davenport #2 6-1 6-1 Amélie Mauresmo #14 Match data Sep 25, 1999* QF Toyota Princess Cup Tier II → modern equivalent WTA 500 Hard
Lindsay Davenport #2 6-1 6-2 Amélie Mauresmo #17 Match data Aug 28, 1999* QF New Haven Tier II → modern equivalent WTA 500 Hard
Amélie Mauresmo #29 4-6 7-5 7-5 Lindsay Davenport #1 Match data Jan 31, 1999* SF Australian Open Grand Slam Hard
Amélie Mauresmo #65 6-2 6-4 Lindsay Davenport #2 Match data May 15, 1998* R16 Berlin Open Tier I → modern equivalent WTA 1000 Clay

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.

Career Comparison

Player Current Peak Pts Elo W L Win % GS Olympics 1000 including documented historical predecessor categories Finals 500 including documented historical predecessor categories 250 including documented historical predecessor categories Titles
Lindsay Davenport #35 #1 6,100 2,374 711 191 78.8% 3 1 11 1 26 13 55
Amélie Mauresmo #21 #1 4,992 2,225 463 185 71.5% 2 0 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 Lindsay Davenport Amélie Mauresmo
YrW-LWin %RankEloGSTitles YrW-LWin %RankEloGSTitles
15 1991 1–2 33.3% #348 1,504 0 0 1995 0–1 0.0% #250 1,488 0 0
16 1992 2–5 28.6% #161 1,512 0 0 1996 2–2 50.0% #180 1,522 0 0
17 1993 31–15 67.4% #20 1,858 0 1 1997 4–6 40.0% #100 1,556 0 0
18 1994 44–15 74.6% #6 2,041 0 3 1998 20–18 52.6% #29 1,728 0 0
19 1995 31–14 68.9% #12 1,964 0 4 1999 32–14 69.6% #10 1,911 0 1
20 1996 47–15 75.8% #9 2,065 0 7 2000 26–13 66.7% #16 1,906 0 2
21 1997 57–16 78.1% #3 2,166 0 13 2001 43–12 78.2% #9 2,022 0 6
22 1998 68–14 82.9% #1 2,286 1 19 2002 45–15 75.0% #6 2,061 0 8
23 1999 58–11 84.1% #2 2,327 2 26 2003 45–17 72.6% #4 2,065 0 10
24 2000 57–14 80.3% #2 2,253 3 30 2004 61–12 83.6% #2 2,178 0 15
25 2001 64–10 86.5% #1 2,298 3 37 2005 53–16 76.8% #3 2,133 0 19
26 2002 24–9 72.7% #12 2,165 3 37 2006 50–14 78.1% #3 2,165 2 23
27 2003 48–15 76.2% #5 2,074 3 38 2007 27–14 65.9% #18 1,972 2 24
28 2004 64–10 86.5% #1 2,208 3 45 2008 30–19 61.2% #24 1,820 2 24
29 2005 58–11 84.1% #1 2,215 3 51 2009 25–12 67.6% #21 1,873 2 25
30 2006 21–8 72.4% #25 2,132 3 51 — — — — — — —
31 2007 13–1 92.9% #72 2,156 3 53 — — — — — — —
32 2008 23–6 79.3% #35 2,111 3 55 — — — — — — —

Surface Results by Age

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 Lindsay Davenport Amélie Mauresmo
Yr HardClayGrassCarpet Yr HardClayGrassCarpet
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 1991 1 2 3 33.3% — — — — — — — — — — — — 1995 — — — — 0 1 1 0.0% — — — — — — — —
16 1992 2 2 4 50.0% 0 3 3 0.0% — — — — — — — — 1996 — — — — 1 1 2 50.0% 1 1 2 50.0% — — — —
17 1993 18 8 26 69.2% 8 3 11 72.7% 2 2 4 50.0% 3 2 5 60.0% 1997 — — — — 3 3 6 50.0% — — — — 1 3 4 25.0%
18 1994 21 6 27 77.8% 12 4 16 75.0% 4 1 5 80.0% 7 4 11 63.6% 1998 9 7 16 56.3% 8 6 14 57.1% 1 2 3 33.3% 2 3 5 40.0%
19 1995 15 8 23 65.2% 8 1 9 88.9% 3 1 4 75.0% 5 4 9 55.6% 1999 19 7 26 73.1% 7 4 11 63.6% — — — — 6 3 9 66.7%
20 1996 29 6 35 82.9% 9 1 10 90.0% 2 2 4 50.0% 7 6 13 53.8% 2000 8 5 13 61.5% 13 4 17 76.5% 0 1 1 0.0% 5 3 8 62.5%
21 1997 36 8 44 81.8% 10 4 14 71.4% 1 1 2 50.0% 10 3 13 76.9% 2001 15 7 22 68.2% 16 3 19 84.2% 2 1 3 66.7% 10 1 11 90.9%
22 1998 43 7 50 86.0% 11 4 15 73.3% 4 1 5 80.0% 10 2 12 83.3% 2002 25 5 30 83.3% 7 5 12 58.3% 7 2 9 77.8% 6 3 9 66.7%
23 1999 33 8 41 80.5% 9 2 11 81.8% 7 0 7 100.0% 9 1 10 90.0% 2003 23 11 34 67.6% 15 3 18 83.3% 1 1 2 50.0% 6 2 8 75.0%
24 2000 41 9 50 82.0% 1 2 3 33.3% 7 2 9 77.8% 8 1 9 88.9% 2004 35 7 42 83.3% 19 3 22 86.4% 7 2 9 77.8% — — — —
25 2001 51 9 60 85.0% — — — — 9 1 10 90.0% 4 0 4 100.0% 2005 36 10 46 78.3% 9 2 11 81.8% 5 2 7 71.4% 3 2 5 60.0%
26 2002 21 8 29 72.4% — — — — — — — — 3 1 4 75.0% 2006 32 10 42 76.2% 6 2 8 75.0% 7 1 8 87.5% 5 1 6 83.3%
27 2003 30 10 40 75.0% 10 3 13 76.9% 4 2 6 66.7% 4 0 4 100.0% 2007 13 7 20 65.0% 6 4 10 60.0% 6 2 8 75.0% 2 1 3 66.7%
28 2004 40 5 45 88.9% 13 3 16 81.3% 5 1 6 83.3% 6 1 7 85.7% 2008 21 14 35 60.0% 4 2 6 66.7% 3 2 5 60.0% 2 1 3 66.7%
29 2005 38 7 45 84.4% 11 2 13 84.6% 6 1 7 85.7% 3 1 4 75.0% 2009 12 7 19 63.2% 4 3 7 57.1% 4 2 6 66.7% 5 0 5 100.0%
30 2006 21 8 29 72.4% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
31 2007 13 1 14 92.9% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
32 2008 18 4 22 81.8% 4 1 5 80.0% 1 1 2 50.0% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Career — 471 116 587 80.2% 106 33 139 76.3% 55 16 71 77.5% 79 26 105 75.2% — 248 97 345 71.9% 118 46 164 72.0% 44 19 63 69.8% 53 23 76 69.7%

Performance Progression by Age

Seasons are aligned by the age each player spent most of that calendar year. Detailed serve and return statistics available for 114/278 of Lindsay Davenport'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 Lindsay Davenport 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%
23 — —/— — — — — — — — — — 2003 10/62 2.3 2.9 63.3% 73.3% 50.3% 41.3% 41.8% 65.2% 48.3%
24 — —/— — — — — — — — — — 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 — —/— — — — — — — — — — 2006 55/64 2.6 2.9 64.8% 68.0% 49.1% 60.4% 53.9% 61.2% 47.1%
27 2003 13/63 3.1 3.8 57.5% 72.0% 48.9% 70.1% 61.3% 62.1% 50.3% 2007 36/41 4.4 4.8 61.2% 69.9% 45.6% 56.1% 53.4% 60.6% 45.7%
28 2004 20/74 4.7 3.3 61.0% 76.7% 48.0% 71.2% 55.1% 65.5% 51.1% 2008 45/49 3.3 6.3 61.4% 67.4% 43.0% 56.0% 51.2% 57.9% 47.5%
29 2005 28/69 5.6 5.0 59.7% 73.5% 46.4% 56.5% 54.0% 62.4% 48.6% 2009 34/37 4.0 5.5 60.2% 67.0% 45.7% 55.9% 48.6% 58.9% 45.1%
30 2006 19/29 3.9 3.5 57.9% 67.9% 53.5% 56.9% 47.3% 61.8% 47.5% — —/— — — — — — — — — —
31 2007 9/14 4.9 3.6 57.3% 72.4% 53.0% 46.7% 63.5% 64.0% 52.9% — —/— — — — — — — — — —
32 2008 25/29 6.0 4.0 58.0% 74.4% 51.4% 48.4% 54.3% 65.2% 47.8% — —/— — — — — — — — — —
Career — 114/902 4.9 4.0 58.8% 73.1% 49.8% 58.1% 54.7% 63.6% 49.2% — 222/648 3.5 4.6 61.5% 69.3% 47.2% 56.4% 51.8% 60.8% 47.1%

Advanced Statistics Comparison by Age

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 Lindsay Davenport 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 1991 1505 103.8 — — — — +36 — — 28.6% -1.71 1–0 — — -0.02 1995 1488 98.9 — — — — — — — 33.3% -1.00 0–1 — — +0.12
16 1992 1512 119.7 — — — — +67 0 — 31.3% -1.38 1–1 — — -0.26 1996 1523 102.5 — — — — — — — 50.0% -0.20 1–1 — — +0.03
17 1993 1859 149.8 — — — — -28 -178 -240 61.3% +0.93 11–3 (79%) 4–4 (50%) 111.2 -0.48 1997 1556 126.4 — — — — -24 +36 — 48.0% -0.08 1–4 (20%) 1–2 (33%) 97.2 -0.06
18 1994 2041 168.7 — — — — -27 -191 -346 69.7% +1.73 11–7 (61%) 6–5 (55%) 102.2 -2.86 1998 1729 146.0 — — — — -83 0 -114 51.2% +0.12 5–3 (63%) 5–4 (56%) 107.0 -0.59
19 1995 1964 155.1 — — — — -15 -55 -216 64.4% +1.21 10–5 (67%) 1–4 (20%) 100.2 +0.77 1999 1912 159.1 — — — — -27 -138 — 61.2% +0.73 12–5 (71%) 5–5 (50%) 109.0 +1.67
20 1996 2066 172.6 — — — — +4 -68 -253 73.5% +1.73 6–6 (50%) 10–8 (56%) 100.5 -1.62 2000 1907 163.5 — — — — -30 +17 — 64.6% +1.38 5–7 (42%) 4–7 (36%) 93.9 -1.71
21 1997 2166 175.6 — — — — +24 -154 — 74.4% +1.95 10–10 (50%) 7–8 (47%) 94.6 +0.58 2001 2023 167.1 — — — — -34 +99 -402 70.7% +1.41 14–3 (82%) 10–3 (77%) 113.0 -2.74
22 1998 2287 180.4 — — — — +50 -220 -395 75.7% +1.94 16–7 (70%) 8–5 (62%) 105.2 -2.47 2002 2062 162.6 — — — — +32 -20 -255 74.0% +1.75 6–7 (46%) 10–5 (67%) 98.8 -0.13
23 1999 2328 179.8 — — — — +19 -263 -303 82.2% +2.53 8–4 (67%) 7–2 (78%) 101.9 -1.25 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 2000 2254 177.5 — — — — +41 — -106 76.8% +2.17 13–6 (68%) 8–8 (50%) 96.4 -2.76 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 2001 2298 174.7 — — — — +17 — -24 81.0% +2.19 13–4 (76%) 9–4 (69%) 103.0 -1.06 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 2002 2166 166.9 — — — — +25 — — 71.1% +1.46 4–6 (40%) 7–5 (58%) 90.6 -0.63 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 2003 2075 165.9 +4.70 +4.45 1.328 56.1% +52 +20 +133 74.6% +1.95 10–6 (63%) 5–5 (50%) 96.2 -0.74 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 2004 2208 171.1 +7.65 +5.05 1.482 57.9% +54 -118 +45 83.1% +2.56 7–3 (70%) 5–3 (63%) 100.2 -0.46 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 2005 2215 170.5 +5.92 +4.60 1.294 55.2% +26 -49 +49 79.2% +2.00 16–6 (73%) 9–7 (56%) 103.6 -1.58 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
30 2006 2133 165.6 +4.92 +4.20 1.241 54.4% +19 — — 71.9% +1.67 4–4 (50%) 7–2 (78%) 97.4 -1.47 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
31 2007 2157 145.6 +4.78 +3.86 1.472 58.3% +12 — — 83.9% +2.65 3–0 (100%) 1–1 — -0.41 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
32 2008 2112 144.2 +7.49 +3.10 1.375 56.0% -6 +44 — 80.0% +2.18 5–0 (100%) 1–1 — -0.18 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Career — 2375 176.5 +6.17 +4.21 1.351 56.0% +22 -122 -126 74.8% +1.90 149–78 (66%) 95–72 (57%) 101.9 -1.91 — 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

Career Rivalries

Each player's five most-played main-draw opponents. The current matchup is highlighted when it appears in a player's top five.