H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Anastasia Rodionova vs Michaella Krajicek H2H: 1-0
Anastasia Rodionova holds a 1–0 lead over Michaella Krajicek in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Anastasia Rodionova leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Anastasia Rodionova won the 2010 Birmingham second round 6-3 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.
AUS
Age 44
Right-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
NED
Age 37
Right-Handed
177 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 9, 2010* | Birmingham | WTA 250 | R64 | Grass | Anastasia Rodionova | 6-3 6-3 | Michaella Krajicek | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anastasia Rodionova | #872 | #62 | 1,095 | 1,649 | 86 | 150 | 36.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Michaella Krajicek | #1,134 | #30 | 918 | 1,803 | 89 | 98 | 47.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
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 | Anastasia Rodionova | Michaella Krajicek | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2003 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #244 | 1,471 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 14–8 | 63.6% | #63 | 1,652 | 0 | 1 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 26–16 | 61.9% | #35 | 1,754 | 0 | 3 |
| 18 | 2000 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #239 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 21–25 | 45.7% | #33 | 1,671 | 0 | 3 |
| 19 | 2001 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #195 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 3–13 | 18.8% | #203 | 1,536 | 0 | 3 |
| 20 | 2002 | 5–3 | 62.5% | #118 | 1,521 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 4–7 | 36.4% | #128 | 1,536 | 0 | 3 |
| 21 | 2003 | 7–8 | 46.7% | #165 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #145 | 1,505 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2004 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #212 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 9–6 | 60.0% | #93 | 1,589 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 2005 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #140 | 1,517 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #167 | 1,562 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 2006 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #94 | 1,526 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #282 | 1,536 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2007 | 11–20 | 35.5% | #78 | 1,525 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #273 | 1,545 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 2008 | 8–20 | 28.6% | #98 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #178 | 1,549 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 2009 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #95 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2010 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #64 | 1,606 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2011 | 8–21 | 27.6% | #108 | 1,573 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2012 | 6–13 | 31.6% | #139 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2013 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #162 | 1,502 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2014 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #185 | 1,514 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2015 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #235 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2016 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #797 | 1,476 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2017 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #390 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |