H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Mary Pierce vs Pam Shriver H2H: 0-1
Pam Shriver holds a 1–0 lead over Mary Pierce in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Pam Shriver leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Pam Shriver won the 1993 Tokyo Pan Pacific third round 6-1 4-2 RET.
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
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 64
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 5, 1993* | Tokyo Pan Pacific | WTA 1000 | R32 | Carpet | Pam Shriver | 6-1 4-2 (ret.) | Mary Pierce | 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 |
| Pam Shriver | #234 | #3 | 163 | 2,302 | 624 | 277 | 69.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 20 | 24 |
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 | Pam Shriver | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1978 | 23–8 | 74.2% | — | 1,849 | 0 | 1 |
| 16 | 1991 | 21–9 | 70.0% | #26 | 1,786 | 0 | 1 | 1979 | 16–16 | 50.0% | — | 1,798 | 0 | 1 |
| 17 | 1992 | 31–9 | 77.5% | #13 | 1,901 | 0 | 4 | 1980 | 47–21 | 69.1% | — | 2,027 | 0 | 2 |
| 18 | 1993 | 38–15 | 71.7% | #12 | 2,003 | 0 | 5 | 1981 | 58–25 | 69.9% | — | 2,122 | 0 | 4 |
| 19 | 1994 | 43–16 | 72.9% | #5 | 2,053 | 0 | 5 | 1982 | 47–19 | 71.2% | — | 2,087 | 0 | 5 |
| 20 | 1995 | 35–14 | 71.4% | #5 | 2,008 | 1 | 7 | 1983 | 52–15 | 77.6% | — | 2,161 | 0 | 8 |
| 21 | 1996 | 17–11 | 60.7% | #24 | 1,899 | 1 | 7 | 1984 | 44–13 | 77.2% | #4 | 2,060 | 0 | 10 |
| 22 | 1997 | 45–15 | 75.0% | #7 | 2,053 | 1 | 8 | 1985 | 54–13 | 80.6% | #4 | 2,117 | 0 | 14 |
| 23 | 1998 | 35–12 | 74.5% | #7 | 2,120 | 1 | 12 | 1986 | 47–15 | 75.8% | #5 | 2,194 | 0 | 16 |
| 24 | 1999 | 45–19 | 70.3% | #5 | 2,053 | 1 | 13 | 1987 | 60–13 | 82.2% | #4 | 2,254 | 0 | 20 |
| 25 | 2000 | 29–11 | 72.5% | #7 | 2,033 | 2 | 15 | 1988 | 58–14 | 80.6% | #5 | 2,188 | 0 | 24 |
| 26 | 2001 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #129 | 1,839 | 2 | 15 | 1989 | 24–14 | 63.2% | #18 | 1,955 | 0 | 24 |
| 27 | 2002 | 14–13 | 51.9% | #52 | 1,752 | 2 | 15 | 1990 | 8–5 | 61.5% | #66 | 1,911 | 0 | 24 |
| 28 | 2003 | 23–17 | 57.5% | #33 | 1,786 | 2 | 15 | 1991 | 21–18 | 53.8% | #37 | 1,822 | 0 | 24 |
| 29 | 2004 | 22–16 | 57.9% | #29 | 1,754 | 2 | 16 | 1992 | 25–18 | 58.1% | #30 | 1,858 | 0 | 24 |
| 30 | 2005 | 41–12 | 77.4% | #5 | 2,119 | 2 | 18 | 1993 | 14–13 | 51.9% | #38 | 1,819 | 0 | 24 |
| 31 | 2006 | 9–8 | 52.9% | #79 | 1,967 | 2 | 18 | 1994 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #63 | 1,699 | 0 | 24 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 7–11 | 38.9% | #110 | 1,649 | 0 | 24 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1996 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #189 | 1,611 | 0 | 24 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1997 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #234 | 1,635 | 0 | 24 |