H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:32 UTC
Anna-Lena Friedsam vs Elena Vesnina H2H: 1-0
Anna-Lena Friedsam holds a 1–0 lead over Elena Vesnina in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Anna-Lena Friedsam leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Anna-Lena Friedsam won the 2015 Tashkent third round 6-2 5-7 7-5.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
GER
Age 32
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
RUS
Age 39
Right-Handed
176 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 1, 2015* | Tashkent | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Anna-Lena Friedsam | 6-2 5-7 7-5 | Elena Vesnina | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anna-Lena Friedsam | #227 | #45 | 1,160 | 1,740 | 61 | 83 | 42.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Elena Vesnina | #573 | #13 | 3,320 | 1,858 | 262 | 260 | 50.2% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 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 | Anna-Lena Friedsam | Elena Vesnina | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #259 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #106 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 20–24 | 45.5% | #47 | 1,617 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2014 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #85 | 1,540 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 17–21 | 44.7% | #54 | 1,631 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2015 | 11–14 | 44.0% | #95 | 1,583 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 12–19 | 38.7% | #79 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2016 | 15–14 | 51.7% | #67 | 1,648 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 31–20 | 60.8% | #23 | 1,767 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2017 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #507 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 22–22 | 50.0% | #52 | 1,720 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2018 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #483 | 1,597 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 19–21 | 47.5% | #57 | 1,689 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2019 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #145 | 1,658 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #68 | 1,701 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2020 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #111 | 1,648 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #25 | 1,801 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2021 | 4–10 | 28.6% | #140 | 1,557 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 16–17 | 48.5% | #64 | 1,689 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2022 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #120 | 1,687 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 11–17 | 39.3% | #115 | 1,609 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2023 | 7–15 | 31.8% | #135 | 1,585 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 28–16 | 63.6% | #16 | 1,778 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 25–26 | 49.0% | #18 | 1,691 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 2025 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #154 | 1,649 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #137 | 1,679 | 0 | 3 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2021 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #310 | 1,689 | 0 | 3 |