H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 04:32 UTC
Anna-Lena Friedsam vs Johanna Larsson H2H: 2-1
Anna-Lena Friedsam holds a 2–1 lead over Johanna Larsson in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on clay, while Anna-Lena Friedsam leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Anna-Lena Friedsam won the 2016 Nurnberg third round 6-3 6-4.
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
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
SWE
Age 37
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 19, 2016* | Nurnberg | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Anna-Lena Friedsam | 6-3 6-4 | Johanna Larsson | Match data |
| Oct 17, 2015* | Linz | WTA 500 | SF | Hard | Anna-Lena Friedsam | 6-3 4-6 7-5 | Johanna Larsson | Match data |
| Jul 17, 2015* | Bastad | WTA 250 | R16 | Clay | Johanna Larsson | 6-3 7-5 | Anna-Lena Friedsam | 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 |
| Johanna Larsson | #236 | #45 | 1,230 | 1,745 | 153 | 177 | 46.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
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 | Johanna Larsson | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #389 | 1,502 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #177 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2014 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #85 | 1,540 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #172 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2015 | 11–14 | 44.0% | #95 | 1,583 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 9–9 | 50.0% | #69 | 1,571 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2016 | 15–14 | 51.7% | #67 | 1,648 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 19–18 | 51.4% | #59 | 1,669 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2017 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #507 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 14–19 | 42.4% | #73 | 1,627 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2018 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #483 | 1,597 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #84 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2019 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #145 | 1,658 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 7–15 | 31.8% | #70 | 1,597 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2020 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #111 | 1,648 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 25–19 | 56.8% | #56 | 1,670 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2021 | 4–10 | 28.6% | #140 | 1,557 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 29–24 | 54.7% | #50 | 1,716 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2022 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #120 | 1,687 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #80 | 1,626 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2023 | 7–15 | 31.8% | #135 | 1,585 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 17–18 | 48.6% | #75 | 1,600 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2019 | 3–13 | 18.8% | #217 | 1,557 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | 2025 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #154 | 1,649 | 0 | 0 | 2020 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #236 | 1,543 | 0 | 2 |