H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Denisa Chladkova vs Jana Nejedly H2H: 1-1
Denisa Chladkova and Jana Nejedly are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Denisa Chladkova leads 1–0 on clay, while Jana Nejedly leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Denisa Chladkova won the 2000 Roland Garros first round 6-3 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.
CZE
Age 47
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
CAN
Age 52
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 31, 2000* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R128 | Clay | Denisa Chladkova | 6-3 6-4 | Jana Nejedly | Match data |
| Jan 14, 1998* | Hobart | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Jana Nejedly | 4-6 6-4 6-2 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Denisa Chladkova | #655 | #31 | 983 | 1,740 | 129 | 165 | 43.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jana Nejedly | #914 | #64 | 488 | 1,626 | 49 | 104 | 32.0% | 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 | Denisa Chladkova | Jana Nejedly | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 1995 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #190 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1996 | 4–2 | 66.7% | #77 | 1,578 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1997 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #54 | 1,576 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1998 | 4–19 | 17.4% | #119 | 1,440 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #328 | 1,463 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1999 | 18–15 | 54.5% | #58 | 1,646 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #139 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2000 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #50 | 1,645 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #82 | 1,580 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2001 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #50 | 1,661 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #130 | 1,566 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2002 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #63 | 1,642 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #137 | 1,553 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2003 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #43 | 1,666 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #75 | 1,565 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2004 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #54 | 1,699 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 5–13 | 27.8% | #88 | 1,500 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2005 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #127 | 1,552 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 12–20 | 37.5% | #69 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2001 | 8–17 | 32.0% | #96 | 1,520 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2002 | 3–11 | 21.4% | #233 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 |