H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Elena Likhovtseva vs Tatiana Panova H2H: 2-1
Elena Likhovtseva holds a 2–1 lead over Tatiana Panova in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Elena Likhovtseva leads 2–0 on clay, while Tatiana Panova leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Elena Likhovtseva won the 2002 Berlin second round 7-5 3-6 7-6(3).
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
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
RUS
Age 49
Right-Handed
154 cm / 5'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 8, 2002* | Berlin | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Elena Likhovtseva | 7-5 3-6 7-6(3) | Tatiana Panova | Match data |
| Oct 14, 1999* | Zurich | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Tatiana Panova | 6-3 7-5 | Elena Likhovtseva | Match data |
| Apr 1, 1998* | Hilton Head | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Elena Likhovtseva | 3-6 6-2 6-4 | Tatiana Panova | 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 |
| Tatiana Panova | #1,113 | #20 | 1,270 | 1,782 | 130 | 196 | 39.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Tatiana Panova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 1993 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #67 | 1,633 | 0 | 1 | 1994 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #142 | 1,508 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1994 | 17–19 | 47.2% | #62 | 1,736 | 0 | 1 | 1995 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #179 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1995 | 18–18 | 50.0% | #45 | 1,718 | 0 | 1 | 1996 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #159 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1996 | 30–21 | 58.8% | #18 | 1,819 | 0 | 1 | 1997 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #97 | 1,475 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1997 | 24–24 | 50.0% | #31 | 1,749 | 0 | 2 | 1998 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #78 | 1,472 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1998 | 35–29 | 54.7% | #26 | 1,829 | 0 | 2 | 1999 | 14–23 | 37.8% | #40 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1999 | 34–29 | 54.0% | #18 | 1,755 | 0 | 2 | 2000 | 23–28 | 45.1% | #34 | 1,698 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2000 | 29–27 | 51.8% | #21 | 1,770 | 0 | 2 | 2001 | 22–30 | 42.3% | #40 | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2001 | 25–24 | 51.0% | #36 | 1,746 | 0 | 2 | 2002 | 34–31 | 52.3% | #23 | 1,752 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2002 | 24–27 | 47.1% | #42 | 1,666 | 0 | 2 | 2003 | 7–13 | 35.0% | #114 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2003 | 26–26 | 50.0% | #37 | 1,678 | 0 | 2 | 2004 | 8–14 | 36.4% | #77 | 1,595 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2004 | 26–24 | 52.0% | #24 | 1,828 | 0 | 3 | 2005 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #91 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2005 | 30–22 | 57.7% | #17 | 1,795 | 0 | 3 | 2006 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #376 | 1,470 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2006 | 16–20 | 44.4% | #43 | 1,695 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2007 | 13–17 | 43.3% | #62 | 1,665 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2008 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #1044 | 1,634 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |