H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Camila Giorgi vs Anabel Medina Garrigues H2H: 0-1
Anabel Medina Garrigues holds a 1–0 lead over Camila Giorgi in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Anabel Medina Garrigues leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Anabel Medina Garrigues won the 2012 Osaka third round 3-6 6-2 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.
ITA
Age 34
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
ESP
Age 43
Right-Handed
169 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 11, 2012* | Osaka | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Anabel Medina Garrigues | 3-6 6-2 6-2 | Camila Giorgi | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Camila Giorgi | #116 | #26 | 1,978 | 1,875 | 204 | 184 | 52.6% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
| Anabel Medina Garrigues | #741 | #16 | 2,505 | 1,852 | 310 | 275 | 53.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 8 | 11 |
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 | Camila Giorgi | Anabel Medina Garrigues | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2000 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #109 | 1,494 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2001 | 16–20 | 44.4% | #66 | 1,563 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 2011 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #151 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 9–3 | 75.0% | #116 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 2012 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #75 | 1,524 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 13–12 | 52.0% | #71 | 1,613 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2013 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #98 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 25–22 | 53.2% | #39 | 1,716 | 0 | 2 |
| 22 | 2014 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #34 | 1,710 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #33 | 1,747 | 0 | 4 |
| 23 | 2015 | 26–21 | 55.3% | #35 | 1,730 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 34–24 | 58.6% | #27 | 1,690 | 0 | 6 |
| 24 | 2016 | 14–19 | 42.4% | #82 | 1,638 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 25–22 | 53.2% | #34 | 1,694 | 0 | 7 |
| 25 | 2017 | 15–12 | 55.6% | #78 | 1,778 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 41–24 | 63.1% | #22 | 1,833 | 0 | 8 |
| 26 | 2018 | 28–15 | 65.1% | #26 | 1,865 | 0 | 2 | 2009 | 33–26 | 55.9% | #27 | 1,683 | 0 | 9 |
| 27 | 2019 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #100 | 1,725 | 0 | 2 | 2010 | 18–25 | 41.9% | #71 | 1,565 | 0 | 9 |
| 28 | 2020 | 10–9 | 52.6% | #76 | 1,726 | 0 | 2 | 2011 | 35–21 | 62.5% | #27 | 1,774 | 0 | 11 |
| 29 | 2021 | 21–16 | 56.8% | #33 | 1,799 | 0 | 3 | 2012 | 23–25 | 47.9% | #50 | 1,629 | 0 | 11 |
| 30 | 2022 | 14–16 | 46.7% | #66 | 1,763 | 0 | 3 | 2013 | 8–19 | 29.6% | #100 | 1,553 | 0 | 11 |
| 31 | 2023 | 20–15 | 57.1% | #53 | 1,788 | 0 | 4 | 2014 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #452 | 1,501 | 0 | 11 |
| 32 | 2024 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #116 | 1,760 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |