H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 22:32 UTC
Belinda Bencic vs Casey Dellacqua H2H: 2-0
Belinda Bencic holds a 2–0 lead over Casey Dellacqua in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Belinda Bencic leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Belinda Bencic won the 2015 Charleston second round 6-1 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.
SUI
Age 29
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
AUS
Age 41
Left-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 8, 2015* | Charleston | WTA 500 | R64 | Clay | Belinda Bencic | 6-1 6-2 | Casey Dellacqua | Match data |
| Mar 25, 2015* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Belinda Bencic | 6-2 4-6 6-2 | Casey Dellacqua | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Belinda Bencic | #14 | #4 | 4,745 | 2,032 | 298 | 187 | 61.4% | 0 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 9 |
| Casey Dellacqua | #932 | #26 | 1,725 | 1,761 | 79 | 105 | 42.9% | 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 | Belinda Bencic | Casey Dellacqua | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 2012 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #612 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 2013 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #184 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2014 | 18–17 | 51.4% | #32 | 1,697 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2015 | 40–21 | 65.6% | #14 | 1,886 | 0 | 2 | 2003 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #287 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2016 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #43 | 1,687 | 0 | 2 | 2004 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #291 | 1,473 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2017 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #98 | 1,686 | 0 | 2 | 2005 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #195 | 1,475 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2018 | 12–13 | 48.0% | #54 | 1,723 | 0 | 2 | 2006 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #157 | 1,502 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2019 | 48–21 | 69.6% | #8 | 1,923 | 0 | 4 | 2007 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #86 | 1,502 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2020 | 7–7 | 50.0% | #12 | 1,850 | 0 | 4 | 2008 | 17–16 | 51.5% | #53 | 1,618 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2021 | 28–19 | 59.6% | #23 | 1,848 | 0 | 4 | 2009 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #1002 | 1,587 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2022 | 38–19 | 66.7% | #12 | 1,884 | 0 | 5 | 2010 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #227 | 1,555 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2023 | 31–13 | 70.5% | #17 | 1,921 | 0 | 7 | 2011 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #134 | 1,535 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #101 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2025 | 36–16 | 69.2% | #11 | 2,004 | 0 | 9 | 2013 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #142 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2026 | 18–9 | 66.7% | #14 | 1,998 | 0 | 9 | 2014 | 27–17 | 61.4% | #29 | 1,745 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #116 | 1,629 | 0 | 0 |