H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Elena Dementieva vs Meilen Tu H2H: 1-1
Elena Dementieva and Meilen Tu are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Elena Dementieva leads 1–0 on clay, while Meilen Tu leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Elena Dementieva won the 2007 Warsaw third round 6-7(5) 6-0 7-5.
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 44
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
USA
Age 48
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 3, 2007* | Warsaw | WTA 500 | R32 | Clay | Elena Dementieva | 6-7(5) 6-0 7-5 | Meilen Tu | Match data |
| Aug 3, 2000* | San Diego | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Meilen Tu | 6-2 2-6 6-3 | Elena Dementieva | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elena Dementieva | #10 | #3 | 8,286 | 2,108 | 472 | 243 | 66.0% | 0 | 3 | 0 | 9 | 3 | 15 |
| Meilen Tu | #1,136 | #35 | 769 | 1,692 | 103 | 163 | 38.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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 | Elena Dementieva | Meilen Tu | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #349 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1998 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #186 | 1,478 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #160 | 1,542 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1999 | 11–11 | 50.0% | #62 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #161 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2000 | 33–19 | 63.5% | #11 | 1,859 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #157 | 1,518 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2001 | 34–22 | 60.7% | #15 | 1,833 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 6–13 | 31.6% | #81 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2002 | 36–26 | 58.1% | #19 | 1,763 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #209 | 1,533 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2003 | 47–25 | 65.3% | #8 | 1,966 | 0 | 3 | 1999 | 3–11 | 21.4% | #103 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2004 | 40–22 | 64.5% | #6 | 1,986 | 0 | 4 | 2000 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #67 | 1,576 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2005 | 41–22 | 65.1% | #8 | 1,925 | 0 | 4 | 2001 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #45 | 1,615 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2006 | 45–21 | 68.2% | #8 | 1,908 | 0 | 6 | 2002 | 16–24 | 40.0% | #73 | 1,561 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2007 | 41–18 | 69.5% | #11 | 1,964 | 0 | 8 | 2003 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #143 | 1,478 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2008 | 50–17 | 74.6% | #4 | 2,014 | 0 | 10 | 2004 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #162 | 1,464 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2009 | 55–18 | 75.3% | #5 | 1,981 | 0 | 13 | 2005 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #120 | 1,474 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2010 | 39–19 | 67.2% | #9 | 1,928 | 0 | 15 | 2006 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #90 | 1,532 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 20–22 | 47.6% | #47 | 1,625 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #630 | 1,546 | 0 | 1 |