H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Miriam Oremans vs Ann Grossman H2H: 0-1
Ann Grossman holds a 1–0 lead over Miriam Oremans in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Ann Grossman leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Ann Grossman won the 1996 Key Biscayne third round 6-4 0-6 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.
NED
Age 53
Right-Handed
169 cm / 5'7"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 55
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 24, 1996* | Key Biscayne | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Ann Grossman | 6-4 0-6 6-2 | Miriam Oremans | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Miriam Oremans | #193 | #25 | 585 | 1,809 | 161 | 181 | 47.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ann Grossman | #343 | #29 | 384 | 1,888 | 187 | 185 | 50.3% | 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 | Miriam Oremans | Ann Grossman | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1987 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #378 | 1,497 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1990 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #185 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 | 1988 | 15–12 | 55.6% | #48 | 1,699 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1991 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #149 | 1,471 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 23–20 | 53.5% | #54 | 1,736 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1992 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #130 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 23–22 | 51.1% | #50 | 1,749 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1993 | 28–20 | 58.3% | #31 | 1,747 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 12–19 | 38.7% | #89 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1994 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #48 | 1,733 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 23–17 | 57.5% | #36 | 1,734 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1995 | 19–18 | 51.4% | #42 | 1,769 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #35 | 1,810 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1996 | 17–18 | 48.6% | #46 | 1,714 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #37 | 1,853 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1997 | 15–15 | 50.0% | #46 | 1,774 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 12–19 | 38.7% | #88 | 1,681 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1998 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #57 | 1,729 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #72 | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1999 | 8–17 | 32.0% | #98 | 1,628 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #75 | 1,615 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2000 | 16–12 | 57.1% | #64 | 1,701 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #283 | 1,595 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2001 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #84 | 1,686 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2002 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #124 | 1,611 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |