H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Rita Grande vs Miriam Oremans H2H: 1-1
Rita Grande and Miriam Oremans are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Rita Grande leads 1–0 on carpet, while Miriam Oremans leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Rita Grande won the 1998 Paris third round 7-6 6-1.
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
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
NED
Age 53
Right-Handed
169 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 12, 1998* | Paris | WTA 500 | R32 | Carpet | Rita Grande | 7-6 6-1 | Miriam Oremans | Match data |
| Jun 26, 1996* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R128 | Grass | Miriam Oremans | 7-6 6-3 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rita Grande | #1,172 | #24 | 1,020 | 1,755 | 172 | 218 | 44.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Miriam Oremans | #193 | #25 | 585 | 1,809 | 161 | 181 | 47.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Miriam Oremans | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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% | #185 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1993 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #186 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #149 | 1,471 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1994 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #146 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #130 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1995 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #72 | 1,591 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 28–20 | 58.3% | #31 | 1,747 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1996 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #71 | 1,627 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #48 | 1,733 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1997 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #44 | 1,676 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 19–18 | 51.4% | #42 | 1,769 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1998 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #59 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 17–18 | 48.6% | #46 | 1,714 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1999 | 21–18 | 53.8% | #54 | 1,679 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 15–15 | 50.0% | #46 | 1,774 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2000 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,602 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #57 | 1,729 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2001 | 35–26 | 57.4% | #24 | 1,742 | 0 | 2 | 1999 | 8–17 | 32.0% | #98 | 1,628 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2002 | 21–27 | 43.8% | #46 | 1,641 | 0 | 2 | 2000 | 16–12 | 57.1% | #64 | 1,701 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2003 | 14–25 | 35.9% | #70 | 1,534 | 0 | 3 | 2001 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #84 | 1,686 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2004 | 12–18 | 40.0% | #104 | 1,536 | 0 | 3 | 2002 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #124 | 1,611 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2005 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1088 | 1,518 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |