H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Ekaterina Makarova vs Ai Sugiyama H2H: 2-0
Ekaterina Makarova holds a 2–0 lead over Ai Sugiyama in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Ekaterina Makarova leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Ekaterina Makarova won the 2009 Miami second 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.
RUS
Age 38
Left-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
JPN
Age 51
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 25, 2009* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Ekaterina Makarova | 6-3 6-4 | Ai Sugiyama | Match data |
| Aug 30, 2007* | US Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Ekaterina Makarova | 6-4 4-6 6-2 | Ai Sugiyama | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ekaterina Makarova | #1,000 | #8 | 3,620 | 1,940 | 248 | 222 | 52.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| Ai Sugiyama | #97 | #8 | 2,400 | 1,951 | 411 | 362 | 53.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 6 |
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 | Ekaterina Makarova | Ai Sugiyama | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1992 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #184 | 1,477 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1993 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #145 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1994 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #72 | 1,557 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2007 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #110 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 16–17 | 48.5% | #46 | 1,691 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2008 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #46 | 1,626 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 22–18 | 55.0% | #28 | 1,738 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2009 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #60 | 1,634 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 31–25 | 55.4% | #21 | 1,833 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2010 | 14–20 | 41.2% | #49 | 1,662 | 0 | 1 | 1998 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #18 | 1,859 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 2011 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #53 | 1,604 | 0 | 1 | 1999 | 27–23 | 54.0% | #24 | 1,806 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 2012 | 26–19 | 57.8% | #20 | 1,757 | 0 | 1 | 2000 | 20–24 | 45.5% | #32 | 1,687 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2013 | 24–18 | 57.1% | #24 | 1,838 | 0 | 1 | 2001 | 28–25 | 52.8% | #30 | 1,720 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 2014 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #11 | 1,837 | 0 | 2 | 2002 | 35–26 | 57.4% | #24 | 1,755 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 2015 | 26–16 | 61.9% | #23 | 1,784 | 0 | 2 | 2003 | 44–25 | 63.8% | #10 | 1,915 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2016 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #30 | 1,782 | 0 | 2 | 2004 | 30–22 | 57.7% | #17 | 1,802 | 0 | 6 |
| 29 | 2017 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #33 | 1,836 | 0 | 3 | 2005 | 28–27 | 50.9% | #29 | 1,742 | 0 | 6 |
| 30 | 2018 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #57 | 1,750 | 0 | 3 | 2006 | 28–25 | 52.8% | #26 | 1,742 | 0 | 6 |
| 31 | 2019 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #997 | 1,700 | 0 | 3 | 2007 | 17–21 | 44.7% | #38 | 1,632 | 0 | 6 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 26–21 | 55.3% | #31 | 1,742 | 0 | 6 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 9–19 | 32.1% | #97 | 1,647 | 0 | 6 |