H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Coco Vandeweghe vs Anna-Lena Groenefeld H2H: 1-0
Coco Vandeweghe holds a 1–0 lead over Anna-Lena Groenefeld in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Coco Vandeweghe leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Coco Vandeweghe won the 2011 Memphis third round 6-3 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.
USA
Age 34
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
GER
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 17, 2011* | Memphis | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Coco Vandeweghe | 6-3 6-2 | Anna-Lena Groenefeld | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coco Vandeweghe | #815 | #9 | 3,258 | 1,877 | 138 | 151 | 47.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Anna-Lena Groenefeld | #1,012 | #14 | 1,365 | 1,856 | 109 | 130 | 45.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
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.
| Coco Vandeweghe | Anna-Lena Groenefeld | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2006 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #118 | 1,515 | 0 | 0 |
| 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #549 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 7–15 | 31.8% | #68 | 1,478 | 0 | 0 |
| 2008 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #476 | 1,453 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 36–26 | 58.1% | #21 | 1,786 | 0 | 0 |
| 2009 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #322 | 1,465 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 30–26 | 53.6% | #19 | 1,656 | 0 | 1 |
| 2010 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #116 | 1,566 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #204 | 1,527 | 0 | 1 |
| 2011 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #122 | 1,544 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 7–7 | 50.0% | #76 | 1,596 | 0 | 1 |
| 2012 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #97 | 1,606 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 18–23 | 43.9% | #65 | 1,655 | 0 | 1 |
| 2013 | 5–11 | 31.2% | #113 | 1,563 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #166 | 1,563 | 0 | 1 |
| 2014 | 22–14 | 61.1% | #39 | 1,731 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #266 | 1,542 | 0 | 1 |
| 2015 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #37 | 1,726 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2016 | 22–17 | 56.4% | #36 | 1,726 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2017 | 29–18 | 61.7% | #10 | 1,856 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2018 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #100 | 1,688 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2019 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #241 | 1,688 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2020 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #214 | 1,624 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2021 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #174 | 1,592 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2022 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #128 | 1,666 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2023 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #420 | 1,533 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |