H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Conchita Martínez vs Denisa Chladkova H2H: 1-1
Conchita Martínez and Denisa Chladkova are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on clay. Most recently, Denisa Chladkova won the 2002 Rome third round 6-4 4-6 7-5.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
ESP
Age 54
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
CZE
Age 47
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 16, 2002* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R32 | Clay | Denisa Chladkova | 6-4 4-6 7-5 | Conchita Martínez | Match data |
| May 18, 2001* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R16 | Clay | Conchita Martínez | 6-0 6-1 | Denisa Chladkova | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conchita Martínez | #1,498 | #2 | 3,180 | 2,263 | 669 | 275 | 70.9% | 1 | 9 | 0 | 4 | 19 | 33 |
| Denisa Chladkova | #655 | #31 | 983 | 1,740 | 129 | 165 | 43.9% | 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 | Conchita Martínez | Denisa Chladkova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 1988 | 14–6 | 70.0% | #41 | 1,730 | 0 | 1 | 1995 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #190 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1989 | 35–9 | 79.5% | #7 | 1,933 | 0 | 4 | 1996 | 4–2 | 66.7% | #77 | 1,578 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1990 | 38–10 | 79.2% | #11 | 2,063 | 0 | 7 | 1997 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #54 | 1,576 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1991 | 36–12 | 75.0% | #9 | 2,076 | 0 | 10 | 1998 | 4–19 | 17.4% | #119 | 1,440 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1992 | 44–16 | 73.3% | #8 | 2,054 | 0 | 11 | 1999 | 18–15 | 54.5% | #58 | 1,646 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1993 | 66–13 | 83.5% | #4 | 2,158 | 0 | 16 | 2000 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #50 | 1,645 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1994 | 51–14 | 78.5% | #3 | 2,065 | 1 | 20 | 2001 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #50 | 1,661 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1995 | 57–10 | 85.1% | #2 | 2,182 | 1 | 26 | 2002 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #63 | 1,642 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1996 | 44–16 | 73.3% | #4 | 2,074 | 1 | 28 | 2003 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #43 | 1,666 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1997 | 37–19 | 66.1% | #12 | 2,011 | 1 | 28 | 2004 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #54 | 1,699 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1998 | 38–16 | 70.4% | #8 | 1,968 | 1 | 30 | 2005 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #127 | 1,552 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1999 | 38–22 | 63.3% | #15 | 1,898 | 1 | 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2000 | 48–19 | 71.6% | #5 | 1,951 | 1 | 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2001 | 19–13 | 59.4% | #35 | 1,852 | 1 | 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2002 | 26–24 | 52.0% | #34 | 1,756 | 1 | 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2003 | 29–21 | 58.0% | #18 | 1,756 | 1 | 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2004 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #42 | 1,772 | 1 | 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2005 | 29–19 | 60.4% | #31 | 1,812 | 1 | 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |