H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Anabel Medina Garrigues vs Jelena Kostanic Tosic H2H: 2-0
Anabel Medina Garrigues holds a 2–0 lead over Jelena Kostanic Tosic in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Anabel Medina Garrigues leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Anabel Medina Garrigues won the 2007 Guangzhou fourth round 6-2 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.
ESP
Age 43
Right-Handed
169 cm / 5'7"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
CRO
Age 45
Left-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 28, 2007* | Guangzhou | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Anabel Medina Garrigues | 6-2 6-2 | Jelena Kostanic Tosic | Match data |
| Apr 3, 2003* | Casablanca | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Anabel Medina Garrigues | 7-5 6-2 | Jelena Kostanic Tosic | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anabel Medina Garrigues | #741 | #16 | 2,505 | 1,852 | 310 | 275 | 53.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 8 | 11 |
| Jelena Kostanic Tosic | #937 | #32 | 900 | 1,726 | 112 | 151 | 42.6% | 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 | Anabel Medina Garrigues | Jelena Kostanic Tosic | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1998 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #240 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2000 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #109 | 1,494 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #97 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2001 | 16–20 | 44.4% | #66 | 1,563 | 0 | 1 | 2000 | 10–13 | 43.5% | #114 | 1,523 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2002 | 9–3 | 75.0% | #116 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 | 2001 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #131 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2003 | 13–12 | 52.0% | #71 | 1,613 | 0 | 1 | 2002 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #70 | 1,570 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2004 | 25–22 | 53.2% | #39 | 1,716 | 0 | 2 | 2003 | 16–20 | 44.4% | #66 | 1,621 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2005 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #33 | 1,747 | 0 | 4 | 2004 | 22–25 | 46.8% | #35 | 1,678 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2006 | 34–24 | 58.6% | #27 | 1,690 | 0 | 6 | 2005 | 11–21 | 34.4% | #87 | 1,549 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2007 | 25–22 | 53.2% | #34 | 1,694 | 0 | 7 | 2006 | 19–18 | 51.4% | #51 | 1,577 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2008 | 41–24 | 63.1% | #22 | 1,833 | 0 | 8 | 2007 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #103 | 1,534 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2009 | 33–26 | 55.9% | #27 | 1,683 | 0 | 9 | 2008 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #114 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2010 | 18–25 | 41.9% | #71 | 1,565 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2011 | 35–21 | 62.5% | #27 | 1,774 | 0 | 11 | 2010 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #830 | 1,460 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2012 | 23–25 | 47.9% | #50 | 1,629 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2013 | 8–19 | 29.6% | #100 | 1,553 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2014 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #452 | 1,501 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |