H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Ana Ivanovic vs Agnes Szavay H2H: 1-1
Ana Ivanovic and Agnes Szavay are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Ana Ivanovic leads 1–0 on clay, while Agnes Szavay leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Agnes Szavay won the 2009 Miami third round 6-4 4-6 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.
SRB
Age 38
Right-Handed
184 cm / 6'0"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
HUN
Age 37
Right-Handed
171 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 26, 2009* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Agnes Szavay | 6-4 4-6 6-1 | Ana Ivanovic | Match data |
| May 10, 2008* | Berlin | WTA 1000 | QF | Clay | Ana Ivanovic | 3-6 6-4 6-3 | Agnes Szavay | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ana Ivanovic | #63 | #1 | 6,912 | 2,095 | 419 | 213 | 66.3% | 1 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 15 |
| Agnes Szavay | #1,023 | #13 | 2,059 | 1,846 | 116 | 90 | 56.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
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 | Ana Ivanovic | Agnes Szavay | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2004 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #101 | 1,544 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #186 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2005 | 32–14 | 69.6% | #16 | 1,847 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #189 | 1,481 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2006 | 36–18 | 66.7% | #14 | 1,900 | 0 | 2 | 2007 | 29–10 | 74.4% | #20 | 1,824 | 0 | 2 |
| 19 | 2007 | 49–17 | 74.2% | #4 | 2,034 | 0 | 5 | 2008 | 26–24 | 52.0% | #28 | 1,669 | 0 | 2 |
| 20 | 2008 | 38–16 | 70.4% | #5 | 1,975 | 1 | 8 | 2009 | 22–22 | 50.0% | #39 | 1,712 | 0 | 3 |
| 21 | 2009 | 22–14 | 61.1% | #21 | 1,825 | 1 | 8 | 2010 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #37 | 1,784 | 0 | 5 |
| 22 | 2010 | 33–18 | 64.7% | #17 | 1,938 | 1 | 10 | 2011 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #259 | 1,707 | 0 | 5 |
| 23 | 2011 | 32–20 | 61.5% | #22 | 1,877 | 1 | 11 | 2012 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #1015 | 1,666 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 2012 | 33–18 | 64.7% | #13 | 1,872 | 1 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 25 | 2013 | 38–23 | 62.3% | #16 | 1,855 | 1 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 26 | 2014 | 59–18 | 76.6% | #5 | 2,019 | 1 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2015 | 29–19 | 60.4% | #16 | 1,857 | 1 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2016 | 15–14 | 51.7% | #63 | 1,702 | 1 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |