H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC

Nadia Petrova vs Amélie Mauresmo H2H: 4-6

Amélie Mauresmo holds a 6–4 lead over Nadia Petrova in their WTA head-to-head. Across 10 main-draw meetings, Amélie Mauresmo leads 4–2 on hard courts, while they are tied 1–1 on carpet. Most recently, Amélie Mauresmo won the 2007 Eastbourne semifinal 6-4 RET.

RUS Age 44 Right-Handed 178 cm / 5'10"
H2H
4 6
10 main draw meetings
FRA Age 47 Right-Handed 175 cm / 5'9"

H2H Match Log

DateTournamentCategoryRoundSurfaceWinnerScoreLoserMatch
Jun 23, 2007* Eastbourne WTA 500 SF Grass Amélie Mauresmo #4 6-4 (ret.) Nadia Petrova #11 Match data
Feb 10, 2007* Paris WTA 500 SF Carpet Nadia Petrova #7 5-7 6-4 7-6(7) Amélie Mauresmo #3 Match data
Nov 6, 2006 WTA Tour Championships WTA Finals RR Hard Nadia Petrova #5 6-2 6-2 Amélie Mauresmo #1 Match data
Mar 25, 2006* Miami WTA 1000 QF Hard Amélie Mauresmo #1 6-3 6-1 Nadia Petrova #7 Match data
Mar 5, 2006* Doha WTA 500 F Hard Nadia Petrova #8 6-3 7-5 Amélie Mauresmo #2 Match data
Feb 18, 2006* Antwerp WTA 500 SF Hard Amélie Mauresmo #2 6-4 7-5 Nadia Petrova #7 Match data
Oct 8, 2005* Filderstadt WTA 500 QF Hard Amélie Mauresmo #4 2-6 6-2 6-4 Nadia Petrova #9 Match data
Aug 15, 2005 Toronto WTA 1000 QF Hard Amélie Mauresmo #3 4-6 7-5 2-0 (ret.) Nadia Petrova #10 Match data
May 7, 2005* Berlin WTA 1000 QF Clay Nadia Petrova #12 6-2 6-3 Amélie Mauresmo #3 Match data
Feb 12, 2005* Paris WTA 500 SF Carpet Amélie Mauresmo #4 7-5 6-3 Nadia Petrova #12 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
Nadia Petrova #578 #3 3,882 2,077 441 276 61.5% 0 3 1 7 2 13
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 Nadia Petrova Amélie Mauresmo
YrW-LWin %RankEloGSTitles YrW-LWin %RankEloGSTitles
15 1995 0–1 0.0% #250 1,488 0 0
16 1998 2–2 50.0% #145 1,536 0 0 1996 2–2 50.0% #180 1,522 0 0
17 1999 3–5 37.5% #93 1,568 0 0 1997 4–6 40.0% #100 1,555 0 0
18 2000 12–15 44.4% #60 1,624 0 0 1998 20–18 52.6% #29 1,729 0 0
19 2001 20–21 48.8% #39 1,682 0 0 1999 32–14 69.6% #10 1,914 0 1
20 2002 7–5 58.3% #112 1,758 0 0 2000 26–12 68.4% #16 1,932 0 2
21 2003 36–20 64.3% #12 1,924 0 0 2001 43–12 78.2% #9 2,029 0 6
22 2004 39–24 61.9% #12 1,880 0 0 2002 45–15 75.0% #6 2,060 0 8
23 2005 56–25 69.1% #9 1,945 0 1 2003 45–17 72.6% #4 2,061 0 10
24 2006 48–19 71.6% #6 1,990 0 6 2004 56–11 83.6% #2 2,175 0 15
25 2007 37–18 67.3% #14 1,931 0 7 2005 53–16 76.8% #3 2,127 0 19
26 2008 47–24 66.2% #11 1,923 0 9 2006 50–14 78.1% #3 2,135 2 23
27 2009 30–21 58.8% #20 1,821 0 9 2007 27–14 65.9% #18 1,960 2 24
28 2010 32–20 61.5% #15 1,828 0 9 2008 30–19 61.2% #24 1,815 2 24
29 2011 25–21 54.3% #29 1,781 0 10 2009 25–12 67.6% #21 1,871 2 25
30 2012 37–18 67.3% #12 1,917 0 13
31 2013 9–13 40.9% #104 1,718 0 13
32 2014 1–5 16.7% #362 1,648 0 13