H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Anastasiya Yakimova vs Tamira Paszek H2H: 1-1
Anastasiya Yakimova and Tamira Paszek are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Anastasiya Yakimova leads 1–0 on clay, while Tamira Paszek leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Tamira Paszek won the 2012 Indian Wells first round 6-4 2-6 6-1.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
BLR
Age 39
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
Age 35
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 6, 2012* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R128 | Hard | Tamira Paszek | 6-4 2-6 6-1 | Anastasiya Yakimova | Match data |
| Apr 28, 2011* | Estoril | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Anastasiya Yakimova | 5-7 4-0 (ret.) | Tamira Paszek | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anastasiya Yakimova | #1,233 | #49 | 989 | 1,526 | 30 | 74 | 28.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tamira Paszek | — | — | — | 1,801 | 99 | 128 | 43.6% | 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 | Anastasiya Yakimova | Tamira Paszek | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,512 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 6–2 | 75.0% | — | 1,598 | 0 | 1 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 15–14 | 51.7% | — | 1,730 | 0 | 1 |
| 17 | 2004 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #143 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 16–18 | 47.1% | — | 1,697 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | 2005 | 0–8 | 0.0% | #117 | 1,409 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 5–9 | 35.7% | — | 1,626 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 2006 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #67 | 1,465 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 9–9 | 50.0% | — | 1,641 | 0 | 2 |
| 20 | 2007 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #129 | 1,452 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 19–21 | 47.5% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 2008 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #103 | 1,437 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 18–20 | 47.4% | — | 1,687 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2009 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #109 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 2–17 | 10.5% | — | 1,483 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 2010 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #120 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 1–4 | 20.0% | — | 1,475 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 2011 | 6–13 | 31.6% | #62 | 1,469 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 1–4 | 20.0% | — | 1,447 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2012 | 1–9 | 10.0% | #256 | 1,432 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 6–9 | 40.0% | — | 1,498 | 0 | 3 |