H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Lisa Raymond vs Lilia Osterloh H2H: 3-1
Lisa Raymond holds a 3–1 lead over Lilia Osterloh in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Lisa Raymond leads 2–1 on hard courts and 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Lisa Raymond won the 2005 Los Angeles second round 6-0 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.
USA
Age 52
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H
3
–
1
4 main draw meetings
USA
Age 48
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 10, 2005* | Los Angeles | WTA 500 | R64 | Hard | Lisa Raymond | 6-0 6-2 | Lilia Osterloh | Match data |
| Sep 15, 2001* | Waikoloa | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Lisa Raymond | 2-6 6-2 6-2 | Lilia Osterloh | Match data |
| Feb 1, 2001* | Tokyo | WTA 1000 | R32 | Carpet | Lisa Raymond | 6-1 6-4 | Lilia Osterloh | Match data |
| Feb 25, 1999* | Oklahoma | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Lilia Osterloh | 2-6 6-2 6-2 | Lisa Raymond | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lisa Raymond | #884 | #15 | 1,695 | 1,945 | 325 | 272 | 54.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Lilia Osterloh | #1,223 | #41 | 738 | 1,697 | 83 | 138 | 37.6% | 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 | Lisa Raymond | Lilia Osterloh | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1989 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #449 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1990 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #336 | 1,480 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1991 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #257 | 1,510 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1992 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #75 | 1,617 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #195 | 1,518 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1993 | 13–12 | 52.0% | #55 | 1,691 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #170 | 1,551 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1994 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #44 | 1,749 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #120 | 1,501 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1995 | 25–16 | 61.0% | #20 | 1,813 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 9–13 | 40.9% | #79 | 1,545 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1996 | 23–19 | 54.8% | #27 | 1,859 | 0 | 1 | 2000 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #43 | 1,595 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1997 | 31–21 | 59.6% | #17 | 1,910 | 0 | 1 | 2001 | 23–25 | 47.9% | #53 | 1,659 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1998 | 29–21 | 58.0% | #27 | 1,837 | 0 | 1 | 2002 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #156 | 1,535 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1999 | 22–23 | 48.9% | #28 | 1,784 | 0 | 1 | 2003 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #180 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2000 | 26–20 | 56.5% | #30 | 1,795 | 0 | 2 | 2004 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #119 | 1,561 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2001 | 33–21 | 61.1% | #22 | 1,833 | 0 | 2 | 2005 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #144 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2002 | 29–21 | 58.0% | #29 | 1,755 | 0 | 3 | 2006 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #118 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2003 | 25–18 | 58.1% | #27 | 1,767 | 0 | 4 | 2007 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #91 | 1,543 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2004 | 18–18 | 50.0% | #30 | 1,746 | 0 | 4 | 2008 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #230 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2005 | 14–19 | 42.4% | #74 | 1,631 | 0 | 4 | 2009 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #136 | 1,510 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | 2006 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #128 | 1,580 | 0 | 4 | 2010 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #237 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 |
| 33 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #884 | 1,563 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |