H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Monica Seles vs Marianne Werdel Witmeyer H2H: 2-0
Monica Seles holds a 2–0 lead over Marianne Werdel Witmeyer in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Monica Seles leads 1–0 on carpet and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Monica Seles won the 1992 Toronto third 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.
USA
Age 52
Left-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 17, 1992 | Toronto | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Monica Seles | 6-2 6-4 | Marianne Werdel Witmeyer | Match data |
| Nov 15, 1991* | Philadelphia | WTA 250 | R16 | Carpet | Monica Seles | 7-5 6-1 | Marianne Werdel Witmeyer | 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 Seles | #223 | #1 | 4,056 | 2,540 | 578 | 121 | 82.7% | 9 | 12 | 3 | 7 | 22 | 53 |
| Marianne Werdel Witmeyer | — | — | — | 1,849 | 181 | 203 | 47.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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.
| Monica Seles | Marianne Werdel Witmeyer | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 1988 | 5–3 | 62.5% | #86 | 1,600 | 0 | 0 | 1983 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 1989 | 33–9 | 78.6% | #6 | 2,002 | 0 | 1 | 1984 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,477 | 0 | 0 |
| 1990 | 55–6 | 90.2% | #2 | 2,295 | 1 | 10 | 1985 | 6–3 | 66.7% | — | 1,542 | 0 | 1 |
| 1991 | 74–6 | 92.5% | #1 | 2,443 | 4 | 20 | 1986 | 13–10 | 56.5% | — | 1,683 | 0 | 1 |
| 1992 | 70–5 | 93.3% | #1 | 2,499 | 7 | 30 | 1987 | 10–17 | 37.0% | — | 1,659 | 0 | 1 |
| 1993 | 17–2 | 89.5% | #8 | 2,485 | 8 | 32 | 1988 | 11–20 | 35.5% | — | 1,588 | 0 | 1 |
| 1995 | 11–1 | 91.7% | #1 | 2,487 | 8 | 33 | 1989 | 13–17 | 43.3% | — | 1,593 | 0 | 1 |
| 1996 | 43–8 | 84.3% | #2 | 2,342 | 9 | 38 | 1990 | 18–18 | 50.0% | — | 1,746 | 0 | 1 |
| 1997 | 45–14 | 76.3% | #5 | 2,159 | 9 | 41 | 1991 | 21–19 | 52.5% | — | 1,740 | 0 | 1 |
| 1998 | 42–13 | 76.4% | #6 | 2,174 | 9 | 43 | 1992 | 13–17 | 43.3% | — | 1,697 | 0 | 1 |
| 1999 | 36–12 | 75.0% | #6 | 2,116 | 9 | 44 | 1993 | 21–18 | 53.8% | — | 1,748 | 0 | 1 |
| 2000 | 51–12 | 81.0% | #4 | 2,144 | 9 | 47 | 1994 | 22–22 | 50.0% | — | 1,772 | 0 | 1 |
| 2001 | 40–10 | 80.0% | #10 | 2,127 | 9 | 51 | 1995 | 20–18 | 52.6% | — | 1,780 | 0 | 1 |
| 2002 | 46–13 | 78.0% | #7 | 2,088 | 9 | 53 | 1996 | 8–18 | 30.8% | — | 1,663 | 0 | 1 |
| 2003 | 10–7 | 58.8% | #60 | 1,993 | 9 | 53 | 1997 | 5–4 | 55.6% | — | 1,672 | 0 | 1 |