H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Denisa Chladkova vs Miriam Oremans H2H: 1-2
Miriam Oremans holds a 2–1 lead over Denisa Chladkova in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Miriam Oremans leads 1–0 on carpet, while Denisa Chladkova leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Denisa Chladkova won the 2001 Roland Garros first round 6-2 6-3.
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
–
2
3 main draw meetings
NED
Age 53
Right-Handed
169 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 30, 2001* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R128 | Clay | Denisa Chladkova | 6-2 6-3 | Miriam Oremans | Match data |
| Oct 28, 2000* | Bratislava | WTA 250 | SF | Hard | Miriam Oremans | 6-4 6-0 | Denisa Chladkova | Match data |
| Sep 25, 1997* | Leipzig | WTA 250 | R32 | Carpet | Miriam Oremans | 7-6 6-7 6-0 | 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 |
| Miriam Oremans | #193 | #25 | 585 | 1,809 | 161 | 181 | 47.1% | 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 | Miriam Oremans | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1990 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #185 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1997 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #54 | 1,576 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #149 | 1,471 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1998 | 4–19 | 17.4% | #119 | 1,440 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #130 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1999 | 18–15 | 54.5% | #58 | 1,646 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 28–20 | 58.3% | #31 | 1,747 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2000 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #50 | 1,645 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #48 | 1,733 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2001 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #50 | 1,661 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 19–18 | 51.4% | #42 | 1,769 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2002 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #63 | 1,642 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 17–18 | 48.6% | #46 | 1,714 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2003 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #43 | 1,666 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 15–15 | 50.0% | #46 | 1,774 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2004 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #54 | 1,699 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #57 | 1,729 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2005 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #127 | 1,552 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 8–17 | 32.0% | #98 | 1,628 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2000 | 16–12 | 57.1% | #64 | 1,701 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2001 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #84 | 1,686 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2002 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #124 | 1,611 | 0 | 0 |