H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Ana Ivanovic vs Akgul Amanmuradova H2H: 2-0
Ana Ivanovic holds a 2–0 lead over Akgul Amanmuradova in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Ana Ivanovic leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Ana Ivanovic won the 2010 Cincinnati quarterfinal 6-1 6-3.
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
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
UZB
Age 42
Right-Handed
190 cm / 6'3"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 14, 2010* | Cincinnati | WTA 1000 | QF | Hard | Ana Ivanovic | 6-1 6-3 | Akgul Amanmuradova | Match data |
| May 8, 2008* | Berlin | WTA 1000 | R32 | Clay | Ana Ivanovic | 7-6(0) 6-2 | Akgul Amanmuradova | 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 |
| Akgul Amanmuradova | #1,097 | #50 | 1,031 | 1,631 | 61 | 101 | 37.7% | 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 | Ana Ivanovic | Akgul Amanmuradova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2005 | 32–14 | 69.6% | #16 | 1,847 | 0 | 1 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,481 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2006 | 36–18 | 66.7% | #14 | 1,900 | 0 | 2 | 2002 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #607 | 1,471 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2007 | 49–17 | 74.2% | #4 | 2,034 | 0 | 5 | 2003 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #307 | 1,464 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2008 | 38–16 | 70.4% | #5 | 1,975 | 1 | 8 | 2004 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #380 | 1,450 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2009 | 22–14 | 61.1% | #21 | 1,825 | 1 | 8 | 2005 | 5–3 | 62.5% | #197 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2010 | 33–18 | 64.7% | #17 | 1,938 | 1 | 10 | 2006 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #204 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2011 | 32–20 | 61.5% | #22 | 1,877 | 1 | 11 | 2007 | 8–8 | 50.0% | #96 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2012 | 33–18 | 64.7% | #13 | 1,872 | 1 | 11 | 2008 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #82 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2013 | 38–23 | 62.3% | #16 | 1,855 | 1 | 11 | 2009 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #85 | 1,542 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2014 | 59–18 | 76.6% | #5 | 2,019 | 1 | 15 | 2010 | 11–15 | 42.3% | #70 | 1,580 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2015 | 29–19 | 60.4% | #16 | 1,857 | 1 | 15 | 2011 | 6–17 | 26.1% | #114 | 1,494 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2016 | 15–14 | 51.7% | #63 | 1,702 | 1 | 15 | 2012 | 3–12 | 20.0% | #198 | 1,457 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #227 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #211 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #375 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2019 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #459 | 1,465 | 0 | 0 |