H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Nicole Pratt vs Rita Grande H2H: 1-0
Nicole Pratt holds a 1–0 lead over Rita Grande in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Nicole Pratt leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Nicole Pratt won the 2001 Shanghai semifinal 6-3 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.
AUS
Age 53
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
ITA
Age 51
Right-Handed
177 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 13, 2001* | Shanghai | WTA 250 | SF | Hard | Nicole Pratt | 6-3 6-4 | Rita Grande | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nicole Pratt | #1,043 | #35 | 924 | 1,764 | 156 | 217 | 41.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Rita Grande | #1,172 | #24 | 1,020 | 1,755 | 172 | 218 | 44.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
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 | Nicole Pratt | Rita Grande | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1991 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #370 | 1,471 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1990 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #201 | 1,497 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1991 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #201 | 1,469 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #186 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1992 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #203 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #146 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1993 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #172 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #72 | 1,591 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1994 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #224 | 1,465 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #71 | 1,627 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1995 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #214 | 1,451 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #44 | 1,676 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1996 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #194 | 1,434 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #59 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1997 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #110 | 1,494 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 21–18 | 53.8% | #54 | 1,679 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1998 | 4–13 | 23.5% | #113 | 1,464 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,602 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1999 | 15–17 | 46.9% | #56 | 1,598 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 35–26 | 57.4% | #24 | 1,742 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2000 | 16–23 | 41.0% | #54 | 1,621 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 21–27 | 43.8% | #46 | 1,641 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2001 | 22–23 | 48.9% | #51 | 1,704 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 14–25 | 35.9% | #70 | 1,534 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2002 | 23–20 | 53.5% | #48 | 1,719 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 12–18 | 40.0% | #104 | 1,536 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2003 | 17–23 | 42.5% | #53 | 1,646 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1088 | 1,518 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 2004 | 19–21 | 47.5% | #50 | 1,604 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2005 | 8–17 | 32.0% | #126 | 1,544 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2006 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #77 | 1,546 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2007 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #70 | 1,566 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2008 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #1043 | 1,545 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |