H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Elena Likhovtseva vs Rita Grande H2H: 3-1
Elena Likhovtseva holds a 3–1 lead over Rita Grande in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while Elena Likhovtseva leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Elena Likhovtseva won the 1998 Luxembourg third round 6-1 6-1.
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 50
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H
3
–
1
4 main draw meetings
ITA
Age 51
Right-Handed
177 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 29, 1998* | Luxembourg | WTA 250 | R32 | Carpet | Elena Likhovtseva | 6-1 6-1 | Rita Grande | Match data |
| May 24, 1996* | Madrid | WTA 1000 | R32 | Clay | Elena Likhovtseva | 6-2 6-7 6-0 | Rita Grande | Match data |
| Jan 21, 1996* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R32 | Hard | Elena Likhovtseva | 6-3 6-1 | Rita Grande | Match data |
| Aug 3, 1995* | San Diego | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Rita Grande | 5-7 6-3 6-1 | Elena Likhovtseva | 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 Likhovtseva | #1,092 | #15 | 1,807 | 1,912 | 358 | 338 | 51.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| 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 | Elena Likhovtseva | Rita Grande | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1991 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #370 | 1,471 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1993 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #67 | 1,633 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1994 | 17–19 | 47.2% | #62 | 1,736 | 0 | 1 | 1993 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #186 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1995 | 18–18 | 50.0% | #45 | 1,718 | 0 | 1 | 1994 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #146 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1996 | 30–21 | 58.8% | #18 | 1,819 | 0 | 1 | 1995 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #72 | 1,591 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1997 | 24–24 | 50.0% | #31 | 1,749 | 0 | 2 | 1996 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #71 | 1,627 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1998 | 35–29 | 54.7% | #26 | 1,829 | 0 | 2 | 1997 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #44 | 1,676 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1999 | 34–29 | 54.0% | #18 | 1,755 | 0 | 2 | 1998 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #59 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2000 | 29–27 | 51.8% | #21 | 1,770 | 0 | 2 | 1999 | 21–18 | 53.8% | #54 | 1,679 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2001 | 25–24 | 51.0% | #36 | 1,746 | 0 | 2 | 2000 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,602 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2002 | 24–27 | 47.1% | #42 | 1,666 | 0 | 2 | 2001 | 35–26 | 57.4% | #24 | 1,742 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2003 | 26–26 | 50.0% | #37 | 1,678 | 0 | 2 | 2002 | 21–27 | 43.8% | #46 | 1,641 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2004 | 26–24 | 52.0% | #24 | 1,828 | 0 | 3 | 2003 | 14–25 | 35.9% | #70 | 1,534 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2005 | 30–22 | 57.7% | #17 | 1,795 | 0 | 3 | 2004 | 12–18 | 40.0% | #104 | 1,536 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2006 | 16–20 | 44.4% | #43 | 1,695 | 0 | 3 | 2005 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1088 | 1,518 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 2007 | 13–17 | 43.3% | #62 | 1,665 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2008 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #1044 | 1,634 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |