H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Ana Ivanovic vs Tamarine Tanasugarn H2H: 1-0
Ana Ivanovic holds a 1–0 lead over Tamarine Tanasugarn in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Ana Ivanovic leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Ana Ivanovic won the 2009 Roland Garros second round 6-1 6-2.
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
THA
Age 49
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 28, 2009* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R64 | Clay | Ana Ivanovic | 6-1 6-2 | Tamarine Tanasugarn | 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 |
| Tamarine Tanasugarn | #947 | #19 | 1,508 | 1,818 | 267 | 273 | 49.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
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 | Tamarine Tanasugarn | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1993 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #407 | 1,482 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2005 | 32–14 | 69.6% | #16 | 1,847 | 0 | 1 | 1994 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #227 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2006 | 36–18 | 66.7% | #14 | 1,900 | 0 | 2 | 1995 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #213 | 1,478 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2007 | 49–17 | 74.2% | #4 | 2,034 | 0 | 5 | 1996 | 9–5 | 64.3% | #75 | 1,609 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2008 | 38–16 | 70.4% | #5 | 1,975 | 1 | 8 | 1997 | 18–20 | 47.4% | #47 | 1,647 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2009 | 22–14 | 61.1% | #21 | 1,825 | 1 | 8 | 1998 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #37 | 1,701 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2010 | 33–18 | 64.7% | #17 | 1,938 | 1 | 10 | 1999 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #71 | 1,634 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2011 | 32–20 | 61.5% | #22 | 1,877 | 1 | 11 | 2000 | 30–18 | 62.5% | #28 | 1,787 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2012 | 33–18 | 64.7% | #13 | 1,872 | 1 | 11 | 2001 | 24–21 | 53.3% | #29 | 1,697 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2013 | 38–23 | 62.3% | #16 | 1,855 | 1 | 11 | 2002 | 32–26 | 55.2% | #28 | 1,676 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2014 | 59–18 | 76.6% | #5 | 2,019 | 1 | 15 | 2003 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #34 | 1,694 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2015 | 29–19 | 60.4% | #16 | 1,857 | 1 | 15 | 2004 | 19–24 | 44.2% | #66 | 1,623 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2016 | 15–14 | 51.7% | #63 | 1,702 | 1 | 15 | 2005 | 7–16 | 30.4% | #122 | 1,503 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 9–7 | 56.2% | #72 | 1,588 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 9–18 | 33.3% | #117 | 1,570 | 0 | 1 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 19–15 | 55.9% | #37 | 1,702 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 10–12 | 45.5% | #101 | 1,653 | 0 | 3 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 14–9 | 60.9% | #62 | 1,734 | 0 | 4 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 4–10 | 28.6% | #94 | 1,649 | 0 | 4 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 4–7 | 36.4% | #152 | 1,594 | 0 | 4 |
| 38 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #855 | 1,577 | 0 | 4 |