H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Nathalie Herreman vs Mary Joe Fernandez H2H: 0-4
Mary Joe Fernandez holds a 4–0 lead over Nathalie Herreman in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Mary Joe Fernandez leads 2–0 on clay and 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Mary Joe Fernandez won the 1992 Key Biscayne second round 7-5 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.
FRA
Age 60
Left-Handed
164 cm / 5'5"
H2H
0
–
4
4 main draw meetings
Age 54
Right-Handed
176 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 15, 1992* | Key Biscayne | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Mary Joe Fernandez | 7-5 6-2 | Nathalie Herreman | Match data |
| Jun 19, 1991* | Eastbourne | WTA 250 | R64 | Grass | Mary Joe Fernandez | 6-3 2-6 6-1 | Nathalie Herreman | Match data |
| May 31, 1989* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R128 | Clay | Mary Joe Fernandez | 6-2 6-3 | Nathalie Herreman | Match data |
| Apr 15, 1987* | Amelia Island | WTA 250 | R64 | Clay | Mary Joe Fernandez | 5-7 6-4 6-2 | Nathalie Herreman | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nathalie Herreman | #886 | #42 | 20 | 1,728 | 103 | 154 | 40.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Mary Joe Fernandez | #136 | #4 | 2,114 | 2,191 | 409 | 192 | 68.1% | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 7 |
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 | Nathalie Herreman | Mary Joe Fernandez | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 12 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1984 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,475 | 0 | 0 |
| 13 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1985 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #99 | 1,554 | 0 | 0 |
| 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1986 | 18–14 | 56.2% | #27 | 1,764 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1987 | 24–14 | 63.2% | #20 | 1,895 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 1982 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,492 | 0 | 0 | 1988 | 22–11 | 66.7% | #15 | 1,922 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1983 | 4–3 | 57.1% | — | 1,548 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 32–15 | 68.1% | #12 | 1,977 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1984 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #125 | 1,564 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 40–10 | 80.0% | #4 | 2,123 | 0 | 2 |
| 19 | 1985 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #126 | 1,543 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 47–18 | 72.3% | #8 | 2,062 | 0 | 2 |
| 20 | 1986 | 16–11 | 59.3% | #42 | 1,718 | 0 | 1 | 1992 | 47–16 | 74.6% | #6 | 2,108 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 1987 | 11–20 | 35.5% | #91 | 1,641 | 0 | 1 | 1993 | 34–13 | 72.3% | #7 | 2,054 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 1988 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #95 | 1,606 | 0 | 1 | 1994 | 21–9 | 70.0% | #14 | 1,975 | 0 | 4 |
| 23 | 1989 | 8–17 | 32.0% | #134 | 1,568 | 0 | 1 | 1995 | 29–11 | 72.5% | #8 | 2,038 | 0 | 6 |
| 24 | 1990 | 19–20 | 48.7% | #62 | 1,684 | 0 | 1 | 1996 | 26–15 | 63.4% | #16 | 1,926 | 0 | 6 |
| 25 | 1991 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #121 | 1,619 | 0 | 1 | 1997 | 39–16 | 70.9% | #10 | 1,987 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 1992 | 6–16 | 27.3% | #183 | 1,556 | 0 | 1 | 1998 | 8–8 | 50.0% | #77 | 1,932 | 0 | 7 |
| 27 | 1993 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #107 | 1,622 | 0 | 1 | 1999 | 17–13 | 56.7% | #38 | 1,890 | 0 | 7 |
| 28 | 1994 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #181 | 1,584 | 0 | 1 | 2000 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #136 | 1,869 | 0 | 7 |
| 29 | 1995 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #386 | 1,580 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |