H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:32 UTC
Elena Vesnina vs Madison Brengle H2H: 3-0
Elena Vesnina holds a 3–0 lead over Madison Brengle in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Elena Vesnina leads 2–0 on clay and 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Elena Vesnina won the 2018 Charleston second round 6-3 2-6 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 39
Right-Handed
176 cm / 5'9"
H2H
3
–
0
3 main draw meetings
USA
Age 36
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 4, 2018* | Charleston | WTA 500 | R64 | Clay | Elena Vesnina | 6-3 2-6 6-2 | Madison Brengle | Match data |
| Jun 24, 2016* | Eastbourne | WTA 500 | R16 | Grass | Elena Vesnina | 7-6(2) 6-4 | Madison Brengle | Match data |
| May 24, 2016* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R128 | Clay | Elena Vesnina | 6-2 6-3 | Madison Brengle | 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 Vesnina | #573 | #13 | 3,320 | 1,858 | 262 | 260 | 50.2% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Madison Brengle | #210 | #35 | 1,324 | 1,740 | 94 | 151 | 38.4% | 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 Vesnina | Madison Brengle | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 2004 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #259 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #229 | 1,502 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2005 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #106 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #220 | 1,457 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2006 | 20–24 | 45.5% | #47 | 1,617 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #165 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2007 | 17–21 | 44.7% | #54 | 1,631 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #188 | 1,447 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2008 | 12–19 | 38.7% | #79 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #197 | 1,459 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2009 | 31–20 | 60.8% | #23 | 1,767 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #191 | 1,444 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2010 | 22–22 | 50.0% | #52 | 1,720 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 2011 | 19–21 | 47.5% | #57 | 1,689 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #95 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2012 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #68 | 1,701 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 25–26 | 49.0% | #40 | 1,627 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2013 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #25 | 1,801 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 16–22 | 42.1% | #73 | 1,602 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2014 | 16–17 | 48.5% | #64 | 1,689 | 0 | 2 | 2017 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #83 | 1,656 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2015 | 11–17 | 39.3% | #115 | 1,609 | 0 | 2 | 2018 | 3–11 | 21.4% | #88 | 1,606 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2016 | 28–16 | 63.6% | #16 | 1,778 | 0 | 2 | 2019 | 7–11 | 38.9% | #95 | 1,601 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2017 | 25–26 | 49.0% | #18 | 1,691 | 0 | 3 | 2020 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #82 | 1,641 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2018 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #137 | 1,679 | 0 | 3 | 2021 | 6–14 | 30.0% | #59 | 1,645 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 12–16 | 42.9% | #57 | 1,637 | 0 | 0 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 6–14 | 30.0% | #151 | 1,586 | 0 | 0 |
| 34 | 2021 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #310 | 1,689 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |