H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Mary Lou Piatek vs Gigi Fernandez H2H: 2-3
Gigi Fernandez holds a 3–2 lead over Mary Lou Piatek in their WTA head-to-head. Across 5 main-draw meetings, Gigi Fernandez leads 2–1 on hard courts, while Mary Lou Piatek leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Mary Lou Piatek won the 1991 Indianapolis third round 6-4 6-1.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 14, 1991* | Indianapolis | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Mary Lou Piatek | 6-4 6-1 | Gigi Fernandez | Match data |
| Apr 18, 1991* | Houston | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Gigi Fernandez | 4-6 7-5 6-4 | Mary Lou Piatek | Match data |
| Oct 1, 1987* | New Orleans | WTA 250 | R32 | Carpet | Mary Lou Piatek | 6-3 6-1 | Gigi Fernandez | Match data |
| Nov 15, 1986* | San Juan | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Gigi Fernandez | 6-3 6-2 | Mary Lou Piatek | Match data |
| Jan 23, 1985* | Key Biscayne | WTA 250 | R64 | Hard | Gigi Fernandez | 6-1 6-0 | Mary Lou Piatek | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mary Lou Piatek | — | — | — | 1,936 | 153 | 206 | 42.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Gigi Fernandez | #181 | #17 | 247 | 1,912 | 227 | 217 | 51.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
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.
| Mary Lou Piatek | Gigi Fernandez | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 1978 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,499 | 0 | 0 | 1982 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,484 | 0 | 0 |
| 1979 | 3–5 | 37.5% | — | 1,546 | 0 | 0 | 1983 | 4–8 | 33.3% | — | 1,524 | 0 | 0 |
| 1980 | 16–12 | 57.1% | — | 1,737 | 0 | 0 | 1984 | 18–16 | 52.9% | #27 | 1,723 | 0 | 0 |
| 1981 | 30–22 | 57.7% | — | 1,873 | 0 | 1 | 1985 | 9–18 | 33.3% | #64 | 1,655 | 0 | 0 |
| 1982 | 18–21 | 46.2% | — | 1,792 | 0 | 1 | 1986 | 17–14 | 54.8% | #57 | 1,729 | 0 | 1 |
| 1983 | 12–20 | 37.5% | — | 1,721 | 0 | 1 | 1987 | 16–17 | 48.5% | #39 | 1,681 | 0 | 1 |
| 1984 | 18–20 | 47.4% | — | 1,703 | 0 | 2 | 1988 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #53 | 1,684 | 0 | 1 |
| 1985 | 14–18 | 43.8% | — | 1,678 | 0 | 2 | 1989 | 23–15 | 60.5% | #23 | 1,810 | 0 | 1 |
| 1986 | 8–15 | 34.8% | — | 1,619 | 0 | 2 | 1990 | 18–14 | 56.2% | #36 | 1,765 | 0 | 1 |
| 1987 | 6–12 | 33.3% | — | 1,594 | 0 | 2 | 1991 | 30–18 | 62.5% | #22 | 1,809 | 0 | 2 |
| 1988 | 6–16 | 27.3% | — | 1,542 | 0 | 2 | 1992 | 22–16 | 57.9% | #32 | 1,806 | 0 | 2 |
| 1989 | 7–15 | 31.8% | — | 1,593 | 0 | 2 | 1993 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #50 | 1,730 | 0 | 2 |
| 1990 | 8–11 | 42.1% | — | 1,612 | 0 | 2 | 1994 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #32 | 1,789 | 0 | 2 |
| 1991 | 5–8 | 38.5% | — | 1,630 | 0 | 2 | 1995 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #65 | 1,738 | 0 | 2 |
| 1992 | 1–8 | 11.1% | — | 1,560 | 0 | 2 | 1996 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #112 | 1,687 | 0 | 2 |
| 1993 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,555 | 0 | 2 | 1997 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #180 | 1,707 | 0 | 2 |