H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:30 UTC
Alizé Cornet vs Tamira Paszek H2H: 1-2
Tamira Paszek holds a 2–1 lead over Alizé Cornet in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Alizé Cornet leads 1–0 on clay, while Tamira Paszek leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Tamira Paszek won the 2012 Wimbledon 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.
FRA
Age 36
Right-Handed
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H
1
–
2
3 main draw meetings
Age 35
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 29, 2012* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R64 | Grass | Tamira Paszek | 6-2 6-1 | Alizé Cornet | Match data |
| Jul 15, 2010* | Prague | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Alizé Cornet | 7-6(4) 6-7(3) 6-4 | Tamira Paszek | Match data |
| Mar 25, 2008* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R128 | Hard | Tamira Paszek | 6-1 2-6 6-3 | Alizé Cornet | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alizé Cornet | #460 | #11 | 3,256 | 1,884 | 376 | 358 | 51.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Tamira Paszek | — | — | — | 1,801 | 99 | 128 | 43.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 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 | Alizé Cornet | Tamira Paszek | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,512 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #317 | 1,515 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 6–2 | 75.0% | — | 1,598 | 0 | 1 |
| 16 | 2006 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #196 | 1,510 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 15–14 | 51.7% | — | 1,730 | 0 | 1 |
| 17 | 2007 | 8–9 | 47.1% | #55 | 1,570 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 16–18 | 47.1% | — | 1,697 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | 2008 | 34–21 | 61.8% | #16 | 1,775 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 5–9 | 35.7% | — | 1,626 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 2009 | 20–24 | 45.5% | #49 | 1,660 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 9–9 | 50.0% | — | 1,641 | 0 | 2 |
| 20 | 2010 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #78 | 1,610 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 19–21 | 47.5% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 2011 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #88 | 1,560 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 18–20 | 47.4% | — | 1,687 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2012 | 21–19 | 52.5% | #44 | 1,637 | 0 | 2 | 2013 | 2–17 | 10.5% | — | 1,483 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 2013 | 35–27 | 56.5% | #27 | 1,730 | 0 | 3 | 2014 | 1–4 | 20.0% | — | 1,475 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 2014 | 37–24 | 60.7% | #19 | 1,789 | 0 | 4 | 2015 | 1–4 | 20.0% | — | 1,447 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2015 | 23–26 | 46.9% | #43 | 1,632 | 0 | 4 | 2016 | 6–9 | 40.0% | — | 1,498 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 2016 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #41 | 1,702 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2017 | 23–22 | 51.1% | #38 | 1,750 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2018 | 22–23 | 48.9% | #45 | 1,693 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2019 | 25–22 | 53.2% | #59 | 1,683 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2020 | 13–9 | 59.1% | #53 | 1,763 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2021 | 24–23 | 51.1% | #61 | 1,744 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2022 | 26–23 | 53.1% | #36 | 1,755 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2023 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #117 | 1,684 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2024 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #391 | 1,613 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2025 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #460 | 1,558 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |