H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Mary Pierce vs Lilia Osterloh H2H: 1-1
Mary Pierce and Lilia Osterloh are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Lilia Osterloh leads 1–0 on carpet, while Mary Pierce leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Lilia Osterloh won the 2000 Tokyo fourth round 6-7(3) 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.
FRA
Age 51
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
USA
Age 48
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 4, 2000* | Tokyo | WTA 1000 | R16 | Carpet | Lilia Osterloh | 6-7(3) 6-4 6-4 | Mary Pierce | Match data |
| Mar 20, 1999* | Key Biscayne | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Mary Pierce | 6-1 6-1 | Lilia Osterloh | 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 Pierce | #560 | #3 | 3,797 | 2,137 | 460 | 215 | 68.1% | 2 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 8 | 18 |
| 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 | Mary Pierce | Lilia Osterloh | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | 1989 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,480 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 15 | 1990 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #107 | 1,543 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1991 | 21–9 | 70.0% | #26 | 1,786 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1992 | 31–9 | 77.5% | #13 | 1,901 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1993 | 38–15 | 71.7% | #12 | 2,003 | 0 | 5 | 1996 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #195 | 1,518 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1994 | 43–16 | 72.9% | #5 | 2,053 | 0 | 5 | 1997 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #170 | 1,551 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1995 | 35–14 | 71.4% | #5 | 2,008 | 1 | 7 | 1998 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #120 | 1,501 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1996 | 17–11 | 60.7% | #24 | 1,899 | 1 | 7 | 1999 | 9–13 | 40.9% | #79 | 1,545 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1997 | 45–15 | 75.0% | #7 | 2,053 | 1 | 8 | 2000 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #43 | 1,595 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1998 | 35–12 | 74.5% | #7 | 2,120 | 1 | 12 | 2001 | 23–25 | 47.9% | #53 | 1,659 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1999 | 45–19 | 70.3% | #5 | 2,053 | 1 | 13 | 2002 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #156 | 1,535 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2000 | 29–11 | 72.5% | #7 | 2,033 | 2 | 15 | 2003 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #180 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2001 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #129 | 1,839 | 2 | 15 | 2004 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #119 | 1,561 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2002 | 14–13 | 51.9% | #52 | 1,752 | 2 | 15 | 2005 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #144 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2003 | 23–17 | 57.5% | #33 | 1,786 | 2 | 15 | 2006 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #118 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2004 | 22–16 | 57.9% | #29 | 1,754 | 2 | 16 | 2007 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #91 | 1,543 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2005 | 41–12 | 77.4% | #5 | 2,119 | 2 | 18 | 2008 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #230 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2006 | 9–8 | 52.9% | #79 | 1,967 | 2 | 18 | 2009 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #136 | 1,510 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #237 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 |