H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Denisa Chladkova vs Rita Grande H2H: 0-1
Rita Grande holds a 1–0 lead over Denisa Chladkova in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Rita Grande leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Rita Grande won the 2001 Estoril fourth round 1-6 6-4 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.
CZE
Age 47
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
ITA
Age 51
Right-Handed
177 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2001* | Estoril | WTA 250 | R16 | Clay | Rita Grande | 1-6 6-4 7-6(5) | 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 |
| Rita Grande | #1,172 | #24 | 1,020 | 1,755 | 172 | 218 | 44.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
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 | Rita Grande | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1991 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #370 | 1,471 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1996 | 4–2 | 66.7% | #77 | 1,578 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1997 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #54 | 1,576 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #186 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1998 | 4–19 | 17.4% | #119 | 1,440 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #146 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1999 | 18–15 | 54.5% | #58 | 1,646 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #72 | 1,591 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2000 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #50 | 1,645 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #71 | 1,627 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2001 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #50 | 1,661 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #44 | 1,676 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2002 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #63 | 1,642 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #59 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2003 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #43 | 1,666 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 21–18 | 53.8% | #54 | 1,679 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2004 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #54 | 1,699 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,602 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2005 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #127 | 1,552 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 35–26 | 57.4% | #24 | 1,742 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2002 | 21–27 | 43.8% | #46 | 1,641 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2003 | 14–25 | 35.9% | #70 | 1,534 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 12–18 | 40.0% | #104 | 1,536 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1088 | 1,518 | 0 | 3 |