H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Camila Giorgi vs Nadia Petrova H2H: 2-1
Camila Giorgi holds a 2–1 lead over Nadia Petrova in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Nadia Petrova leads 1–0 on clay, while Camila Giorgi leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Nadia Petrova won the 2013 Madrid second round 6-3 4-6 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.
ITA
Age 34
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
RUS
Age 44
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 8, 2013* | Madrid | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Nadia Petrova | 6-3 4-6 6-4 | Camila Giorgi | Match data |
| Jul 1, 2012* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R32 | Grass | Camila Giorgi | 6-3 7-6(6) | Nadia Petrova | Match data |
| Feb 23, 2012* | Memphis | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Camila Giorgi | 6-4 6-2 | Nadia Petrova | 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 |
| Nadia Petrova | #578 | #3 | 3,882 | 2,077 | 441 | 276 | 61.5% | 0 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 13 |
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 | Nadia Petrova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1998 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #145 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1999 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #93 | 1,568 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2000 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #60 | 1,624 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2011 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #151 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #39 | 1,682 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2012 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #75 | 1,524 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 7–5 | 58.3% | #112 | 1,758 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2013 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #98 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #12 | 1,924 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2014 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #34 | 1,710 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 39–24 | 61.9% | #12 | 1,880 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2015 | 26–21 | 55.3% | #35 | 1,730 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 56–25 | 69.1% | #9 | 1,945 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2016 | 14–19 | 42.4% | #82 | 1,638 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 48–19 | 71.6% | #6 | 1,990 | 0 | 6 |
| 25 | 2017 | 15–12 | 55.6% | #78 | 1,778 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 37–18 | 67.3% | #14 | 1,931 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 2018 | 28–15 | 65.1% | #26 | 1,865 | 0 | 2 | 2008 | 47–24 | 66.2% | #11 | 1,923 | 0 | 9 |
| 27 | 2019 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #100 | 1,725 | 0 | 2 | 2009 | 30–21 | 58.8% | #20 | 1,821 | 0 | 9 |
| 28 | 2020 | 10–9 | 52.6% | #76 | 1,726 | 0 | 2 | 2010 | 32–20 | 61.5% | #15 | 1,828 | 0 | 9 |
| 29 | 2021 | 21–16 | 56.8% | #33 | 1,799 | 0 | 3 | 2011 | 25–21 | 54.3% | #29 | 1,781 | 0 | 10 |
| 30 | 2022 | 14–16 | 46.7% | #66 | 1,763 | 0 | 3 | 2012 | 37–18 | 67.3% | #12 | 1,917 | 0 | 13 |
| 31 | 2023 | 20–15 | 57.1% | #53 | 1,788 | 0 | 4 | 2013 | 9–13 | 40.9% | #104 | 1,718 | 0 | 13 |
| 32 | 2024 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #116 | 1,760 | 0 | 4 | 2014 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #362 | 1,648 | 0 | 13 |