H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Rita Grande vs Meilen Tu H2H: 2-1
Rita Grande holds a 2–1 lead over Meilen Tu in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Rita Grande leads 2–0 on hard courts, while Meilen Tu leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Rita Grande won the 2001 San Diego second round 3-6 6-3 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.
ITA
Age 51
Right-Handed
177 cm / 5'10"
H2H
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
USA
Age 48
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 1, 2001* | San Diego | WTA 500 | R64 | Hard | Rita Grande | 3-6 6-3 6-2 | Meilen Tu | Match data |
| Apr 19, 2000* | Hilton Head | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Meilen Tu | 6-1 (ret.) | Rita Grande | Match data |
| Aug 2, 1995* | San Diego | WTA 500 | R64 | Hard | Rita Grande | 6-2 3-6 6-2 | Meilen Tu | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rita Grande | #1,172 | #24 | 1,020 | 1,755 | 172 | 218 | 44.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Meilen Tu | #1,136 | #35 | 769 | 1,692 | 103 | 163 | 38.7% | 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.
| Age | Rita Grande | Meilen Tu | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1994 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #160 | 1,542 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #161 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1993 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #186 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #157 | 1,518 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1994 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #146 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 6–13 | 31.6% | #81 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1995 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #72 | 1,591 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #209 | 1,533 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1996 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #71 | 1,627 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 3–11 | 21.4% | #103 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1997 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #44 | 1,676 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #67 | 1,576 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1998 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #59 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #45 | 1,615 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 1999 | 21–18 | 53.8% | #54 | 1,679 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 16–24 | 40.0% | #73 | 1,561 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2000 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,602 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #143 | 1,478 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2001 | 35–26 | 57.4% | #24 | 1,742 | 0 | 2 | 2004 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #162 | 1,464 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2002 | 21–27 | 43.8% | #46 | 1,641 | 0 | 2 | 2005 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #120 | 1,474 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2003 | 14–25 | 35.9% | #70 | 1,534 | 0 | 3 | 2006 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #90 | 1,532 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2004 | 12–18 | 40.0% | #104 | 1,536 | 0 | 3 | 2007 | 20–22 | 47.6% | #47 | 1,625 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2005 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1088 | 1,518 | 0 | 3 | 2008 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #630 | 1,546 | 0 | 1 |