H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Monica Niculescu vs Amélie Mauresmo H2H: 0-1
Amélie Mauresmo holds a 1–0 lead over Monica Niculescu in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Amélie Mauresmo leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Amélie Mauresmo won the 2009 Paris fourth round 6-1 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.
ROU
Age 38
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
FRA
Age 47
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 13, 2009* | Paris | WTA 500 | R16 | Carpet | Amélie Mauresmo | 6-1 6-2 | Monica Niculescu | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Monica Niculescu | #958 | #28 | 1,960 | 1,807 | 176 | 213 | 45.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Amélie Mauresmo | #21 | #1 | 4,992 | 2,217 | 458 | 183 | 71.5% | 2 | 6 | 1 | 15 | 1 | 25 |
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 | Monica Niculescu | Amélie Mauresmo | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #250 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1996 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #180 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1997 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #100 | 1,555 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1998 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #29 | 1,729 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #152 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 32–14 | 69.6% | #10 | 1,914 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 2008 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #48 | 1,542 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 26–12 | 68.4% | #16 | 1,932 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 2009 | 10–22 | 31.2% | #103 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 43–12 | 78.2% | #9 | 2,029 | 0 | 6 |
| 22 | 2010 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #82 | 1,573 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 45–15 | 75.0% | #6 | 2,060 | 0 | 8 |
| 23 | 2011 | 21–15 | 58.3% | #30 | 1,755 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 45–17 | 72.6% | #4 | 2,061 | 0 | 10 |
| 24 | 2012 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #58 | 1,639 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 56–11 | 83.6% | #2 | 2,175 | 0 | 15 |
| 25 | 2013 | 22–21 | 51.2% | #59 | 1,637 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 53–16 | 76.8% | #3 | 2,127 | 0 | 19 |
| 26 | 2014 | 22–19 | 53.7% | #46 | 1,687 | 0 | 2 | 2006 | 50–14 | 78.1% | #3 | 2,135 | 2 | 23 |
| 27 | 2015 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #39 | 1,677 | 0 | 2 | 2007 | 27–14 | 65.9% | #18 | 1,960 | 2 | 24 |
| 28 | 2016 | 25–17 | 59.5% | #38 | 1,782 | 0 | 3 | 2008 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #24 | 1,815 | 2 | 24 |
| 29 | 2017 | 10–19 | 34.5% | #77 | 1,618 | 0 | 3 | 2009 | 25–12 | 67.6% | #21 | 1,871 | 2 | 25 |
| 30 | 2018 | 9–15 | 37.5% | #99 | 1,588 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2019 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #118 | 1,627 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2020 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #144 | 1,579 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2021 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #274 | 1,514 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |