H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Tathiana Garbin vs Amélie Mauresmo H2H: 0-1
Amélie Mauresmo holds a 1–0 lead over Tathiana Garbin in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Amélie Mauresmo leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Amélie Mauresmo won the 2005 Indian Wells second round 6-2 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 49
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
FRA
Age 47
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 11, 2005* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Amélie Mauresmo | 6-2 6-1 | Tathiana Garbin | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tathiana Garbin | #86 | #22 | 1,255 | 1,710 | 167 | 207 | 44.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 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 | Tathiana Garbin | Amélie Mauresmo | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #250 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1996 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #180 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1997 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #100 | 1,555 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1998 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #29 | 1,729 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1999 | 32–14 | 69.6% | #10 | 1,914 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2000 | 26–12 | 68.4% | #16 | 1,932 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 1998 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #121 | 1,476 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 43–12 | 78.2% | #9 | 2,029 | 0 | 6 |
| 22 | 1999 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #126 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 45–15 | 75.0% | #6 | 2,060 | 0 | 8 |
| 23 | 2000 | 23–19 | 54.8% | #42 | 1,629 | 0 | 1 | 2003 | 45–17 | 72.6% | #4 | 2,061 | 0 | 10 |
| 24 | 2001 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #91 | 1,577 | 0 | 1 | 2004 | 56–11 | 83.6% | #2 | 2,175 | 0 | 15 |
| 25 | 2002 | 18–17 | 51.4% | #71 | 1,600 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 53–16 | 76.8% | #3 | 2,127 | 0 | 19 |
| 26 | 2003 | 12–17 | 41.4% | #82 | 1,557 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 50–14 | 78.1% | #3 | 2,135 | 2 | 23 |
| 27 | 2004 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #58 | 1,535 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 27–14 | 65.9% | #18 | 1,960 | 2 | 24 |
| 28 | 2005 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #85 | 1,557 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #24 | 1,815 | 2 | 24 |
| 29 | 2006 | 15–15 | 50.0% | #38 | 1,628 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 25–12 | 67.6% | #21 | 1,871 | 2 | 25 |
| 30 | 2007 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #36 | 1,647 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2008 | 14–20 | 41.2% | #55 | 1,564 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2009 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #59 | 1,597 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2010 | 9–17 | 34.6% | #87 | 1,575 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2011 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #86 | 1,569 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |