H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Ekaterina Makarova vs Tamira Paszek H2H: 1-2
Tamira Paszek holds a 2–1 lead over Ekaterina Makarova in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while Tamira Paszek leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Tamira Paszek won the 2011 Luxembourg third round 6-2 6-2.
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
1
–
2
3 main draw meetings
Age 35
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 20, 2011* | Luxembourg | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Tamira Paszek | 6-2 6-2 | Ekaterina Makarova | Match data |
| Jun 9, 2011* | Birmingham | WTA 250 | R32 | Grass | Tamira Paszek | 6-4 3-6 6-4 | Ekaterina Makarova | Match data |
| Sep 25, 2008* | Seoul | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Ekaterina Makarova | 6-1 6-2 | Tamira Paszek | 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 |
| Tamira Paszek | — | — | — | 1,801 | 99 | 128 | 43.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 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 | Ekaterina Makarova | Tamira Paszek | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,512 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 6–2 | 75.0% | — | 1,598 | 0 | 1 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 15–14 | 51.7% | — | 1,730 | 0 | 1 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 16–18 | 47.1% | — | 1,697 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 5–9 | 35.7% | — | 1,626 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 2007 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #110 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 9–9 | 50.0% | — | 1,641 | 0 | 2 |
| 20 | 2008 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #46 | 1,626 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 19–21 | 47.5% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 2009 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #60 | 1,634 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 18–20 | 47.4% | — | 1,687 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2010 | 14–20 | 41.2% | #49 | 1,662 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 2–17 | 10.5% | — | 1,483 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 2011 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #53 | 1,604 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 1–4 | 20.0% | — | 1,475 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 2012 | 26–19 | 57.8% | #20 | 1,757 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 1–4 | 20.0% | — | 1,447 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2013 | 24–18 | 57.1% | #24 | 1,838 | 0 | 1 | 2016 | 6–9 | 40.0% | — | 1,498 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 2014 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #11 | 1,837 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2015 | 26–16 | 61.9% | #23 | 1,784 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2016 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #30 | 1,782 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2017 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #33 | 1,836 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2018 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #57 | 1,750 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2019 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #997 | 1,700 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |