H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Denisa Chladkova vs Ludmila Cervanova H2H: 3-0
Denisa Chladkova holds a 3–0 lead over Ludmila Cervanova in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Denisa Chladkova leads 3–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Denisa Chladkova won the 2004 Miami first round 6-7(4) 6-4 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
3
–
0
3 main draw meetings
SVK
Age 46
Right-Handed
171 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 25, 2004* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R128 | Hard | Denisa Chladkova | 6-7(4) 6-4 6-4 | Ludmila Cervanova | Match data |
| Oct 23, 2003* | Linz | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Denisa Chladkova | 6-3 5-7 6-0 | Ludmila Cervanova | Match data |
| Jan 9, 2002* | Canberra | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Denisa Chladkova | 6-3 6-2 | Ludmila Cervanova | 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 |
| Ludmila Cervanova | #889 | #58 | 578 | 1,694 | 76 | 96 | 44.2% | 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 | Ludmila Cervanova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1998 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #135 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1998 | 4–19 | 17.4% | #119 | 1,440 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #102 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1999 | 18–15 | 54.5% | #58 | 1,646 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #122 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2000 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #50 | 1,645 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 11–16 | 40.7% | #92 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2001 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #50 | 1,661 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 11–15 | 42.3% | #103 | 1,542 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2002 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #63 | 1,642 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 20–14 | 58.8% | #64 | 1,642 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2003 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #43 | 1,666 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 15–17 | 46.9% | #96 | 1,629 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2004 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #54 | 1,699 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 7–15 | 31.8% | #119 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2005 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #127 | 1,552 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 3–1 | 75.0% | #325 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 |