H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Ana Ivanovic vs Anna-Lena Groenefeld H2H: 1-0
Ana Ivanovic holds a 1–0 lead over Anna-Lena Groenefeld in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Ana Ivanovic leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Ana Ivanovic won the 2006 Los Angeles fourth round 6-1 6-4.
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
–
0
1 main draw meetings
GER
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 11, 2006* | Los Angeles | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Ana Ivanovic | 6-1 6-4 | Anna-Lena Groenefeld | 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 |
| Anna-Lena Groenefeld | #1,012 | #14 | 1,365 | 1,856 | 109 | 130 | 45.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
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.
| Ana Ivanovic | Anna-Lena Groenefeld | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2004 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #101 | 1,544 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #118 | 1,515 | 0 | 0 |
| 2005 | 32–14 | 69.6% | #16 | 1,847 | 0 | 1 | 2004 | 7–15 | 31.8% | #68 | 1,478 | 0 | 0 |
| 2006 | 36–18 | 66.7% | #14 | 1,900 | 0 | 2 | 2005 | 36–26 | 58.1% | #21 | 1,786 | 0 | 0 |
| 2007 | 49–17 | 74.2% | #4 | 2,034 | 0 | 5 | 2006 | 30–26 | 53.6% | #19 | 1,656 | 0 | 1 |
| 2008 | 38–16 | 70.4% | #5 | 1,975 | 1 | 8 | 2007 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #204 | 1,527 | 0 | 1 |
| 2009 | 22–14 | 61.1% | #21 | 1,825 | 1 | 8 | 2008 | 7–7 | 50.0% | #76 | 1,596 | 0 | 1 |
| 2010 | 33–18 | 64.7% | #17 | 1,938 | 1 | 10 | 2009 | 18–23 | 43.9% | #65 | 1,655 | 0 | 1 |
| 2011 | 32–20 | 61.5% | #22 | 1,877 | 1 | 11 | 2010 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #166 | 1,563 | 0 | 1 |
| 2012 | 33–18 | 64.7% | #13 | 1,872 | 1 | 11 | 2011 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #266 | 1,542 | 0 | 1 |
| 2013 | 38–23 | 62.3% | #16 | 1,855 | 1 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2014 | 59–18 | 76.6% | #5 | 2,019 | 1 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2015 | 29–19 | 60.4% | #16 | 1,857 | 1 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2016 | 15–14 | 51.7% | #63 | 1,702 | 1 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |