H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Miriam Oremans vs Laurence Courtois H2H: 1-1
Miriam Oremans and Laurence Courtois are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Miriam Oremans leads 1–0 on grass, while Laurence Courtois leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Miriam Oremans won the 2000 Birmingham second round 6-4 7-6(1).
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
–
1
2 main draw meetings
BEL
Age 50
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 14, 2000* | Birmingham | WTA 500 | R64 | Grass | Miriam Oremans | 6-4 7-6(1) | Laurence Courtois | Match data |
| Jan 17, 1996* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Laurence Courtois | 7-6(4) 7-6(4) | 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 |
| Laurence Courtois | #484 | #37 | 565 | 1,719 | 74 | 93 | 44.3% | 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 | Laurence Courtois | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 1990 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #185 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #104 | 1,520 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1991 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #149 | 1,471 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #105 | 1,545 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1992 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #130 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 14–14 | 50.0% | #64 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1993 | 28–20 | 58.3% | #31 | 1,747 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 19–15 | 55.9% | #44 | 1,706 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1994 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #48 | 1,733 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #183 | 1,639 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1995 | 19–18 | 51.4% | #42 | 1,769 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #125 | 1,574 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1996 | 17–18 | 48.6% | #46 | 1,714 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 13–17 | 43.3% | #78 | 1,545 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1997 | 15–15 | 50.0% | #46 | 1,774 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #130 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1998 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #57 | 1,729 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #166 | 1,540 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1999 | 8–17 | 32.0% | #98 | 1,628 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2000 | 16–12 | 57.1% | #64 | 1,701 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2001 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #84 | 1,686 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2002 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #124 | 1,611 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |