H2H data updated: 2026-07-25 23:01 UTC
Miriam Oremans vs Florencia Labat H2H: 1-0
Miriam Oremans holds a 1–0 lead over Florencia Labat in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Miriam Oremans leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Miriam Oremans won the 2000 Sydney Olympics second round 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.
NED
Age 53
Right-Handed
169 cm / 5'7"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
ARG
Age 55
Left-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 21, 2000* | Sydney Olympics | Olympics | R64 | Hard | Miriam Oremans | 6-2 6-4 | Florencia Labat | 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 | 1,808 | 162 | 182 | 47.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Florencia Labat | #106 | #26 | 733 | 1,868 | 191 | 184 | 50.9% | 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 | Florencia Labat | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1986 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1990 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #185 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1991 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #149 | 1,472 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 8–8 | 50.0% | #77 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1992 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #130 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 12–18 | 40.0% | #100 | 1,572 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1993 | 28–20 | 58.3% | #31 | 1,747 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #60 | 1,671 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1994 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #48 | 1,733 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 18–17 | 51.4% | #52 | 1,729 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1995 | 19–18 | 51.4% | #42 | 1,769 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 21–16 | 56.8% | #51 | 1,762 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1996 | 17–18 | 48.6% | #46 | 1,714 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 27–15 | 64.3% | #38 | 1,787 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1997 | 15–15 | 50.0% | #46 | 1,773 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #55 | 1,780 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1998 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #57 | 1,727 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 25–18 | 58.1% | #42 | 1,771 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1999 | 8–17 | 32.0% | #98 | 1,627 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 21–25 | 45.7% | #39 | 1,674 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2000 | 17–13 | 56.7% | #64 | 1,710 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 13–20 | 39.4% | #64 | 1,655 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2001 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #84 | 1,689 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #117 | 1,620 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2002 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #124 | 1,612 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 8–10 | 44.4% | #106 | 1,609 | 0 | 0 |