H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Coco Vandeweghe vs Marina Erakovic H2H: 2-0
Coco Vandeweghe holds a 2–0 lead over Marina Erakovic in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Coco Vandeweghe leads 1–0 on grass and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Coco Vandeweghe won the 2014 S Hertogenbosch third round 6-4 3-6 7-6(5).
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
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
NZL
Age 38
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2014 | S Hertogenbosch | WTA 250 | R32 | Grass | Coco Vandeweghe | 6-4 3-6 7-6(5) | Marina Erakovic | Match data |
| Mar 18, 2014* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R128 | Hard | Coco Vandeweghe | 6-4 7-6(6) | Marina Erakovic | 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 |
| Marina Erakovic | #827 | #39 | 1,392 | 1,701 | 105 | 131 | 44.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 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.
| Age | Coco Vandeweghe | Marina Erakovic | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | 2006 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 15 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #549 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 2008 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #476 | 1,453 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2009 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #322 | 1,465 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #213 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2010 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #116 | 1,566 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2011 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #122 | 1,544 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #153 | 1,457 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2012 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #97 | 1,606 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #66 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2013 | 5–11 | 31.2% | #113 | 1,563 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 4–7 | 36.4% | #227 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2014 | 22–14 | 61.1% | #39 | 1,731 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #333 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2015 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #37 | 1,726 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #61 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2016 | 22–17 | 56.4% | #36 | 1,726 | 0 | 2 | 2012 | 19–20 | 48.7% | #66 | 1,600 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2017 | 29–18 | 61.7% | #10 | 1,856 | 0 | 2 | 2013 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #46 | 1,673 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2018 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #100 | 1,688 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 12–20 | 37.5% | #76 | 1,609 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2019 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #241 | 1,688 | 0 | 2 | 2015 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #135 | 1,543 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2020 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #214 | 1,624 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #106 | 1,625 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2021 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #174 | 1,592 | 0 | 2 | 2017 | 1–9 | 10.0% | #197 | 1,551 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2022 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #128 | 1,666 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2023 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #420 | 1,533 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |