H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Meghann Shaughnessy vs Janet Lee H2H: 1-0
Meghann Shaughnessy holds a 1–0 lead over Janet Lee in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Meghann Shaughnessy leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Meghann Shaughnessy won the 1998 Tokyo third round 3-6 6-2 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.
USA
Age 47
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
TPE
Age 49
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 16, 1998* | Tokyo | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Meghann Shaughnessy | 3-6 6-2 6-4 | Janet Lee | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Meghann Shaughnessy | #1,104 | #11 | 1,949 | 1,888 | 233 | 233 | 50.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| Janet Lee | #863 | #79 | 390 | 1,560 | 31 | 67 | 31.6% | 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 | Meghann Shaughnessy | Janet Lee | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1993 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #547 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1996 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #165 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #270 | 1,508 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #198 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 4–7 | 36.4% | #169 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1998 | 8–9 | 47.1% | #69 | 1,544 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #175 | 1,514 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1999 | 10–22 | 31.2% | #99 | 1,439 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #114 | 1,526 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2000 | 23–20 | 53.5% | #38 | 1,652 | 0 | 1 | 1998 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #86 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2001 | 45–25 | 64.3% | #12 | 1,825 | 0 | 2 | 1999 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #95 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2002 | 29–27 | 51.8% | #30 | 1,716 | 0 | 2 | 2000 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #117 | 1,513 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2003 | 32–23 | 58.2% | #17 | 1,725 | 0 | 3 | 2001 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #111 | 1,544 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2004 | 20–22 | 47.6% | #40 | 1,663 | 0 | 3 | 2002 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #217 | 1,515 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2005 | 17–25 | 40.5% | #66 | 1,563 | 0 | 3 | 2003 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #162 | 1,504 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2006 | 27–20 | 57.4% | #37 | 1,709 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2007 | 18–22 | 45.0% | #52 | 1,666 | 0 | 6 | 2005 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #694 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2008 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #836 | 1,579 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2009 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #590 | 1,533 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |