H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Elena Vesnina vs Mirjana Lucic-Baroni H2H: 0-1
Mirjana Lucic-Baroni holds a 1–0 lead over Elena Vesnina in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Mirjana Lucic-Baroni leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Mirjana Lucic-Baroni won the 2013 Stuttgart third round 6-0 6-4.
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
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
CRO
Age 44
Right-Handed
181 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 25, 2013* | Stuttgart | WTA 500 | R32 | Clay | Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | 6-0 6-4 | Elena Vesnina | 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 |
| Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | #424 | #20 | 1,924 | 1,798 | 136 | 166 | 45.0% | 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 Vesnina | Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1997 | 11–3 | 78.6% | #49 | 1,692 | 0 | 1 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1998 | 15–11 | 57.7% | #51 | 1,776 | 0 | 2 |
| 17 | 2004 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #259 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #48 | 1,757 | 0 | 2 |
| 18 | 2005 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #106 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 2–12 | 14.3% | #202 | 1,601 | 0 | 2 |
| 19 | 2006 | 20–24 | 45.5% | #47 | 1,617 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #192 | 1,596 | 0 | 2 |
| 20 | 2007 | 17–21 | 44.7% | #54 | 1,631 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #203 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 2008 | 12–19 | 38.7% | #79 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #348 | 1,526 | 0 | 2 |
| 22 | 2009 | 31–20 | 60.8% | #23 | 1,767 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 23 | 2010 | 22–22 | 50.0% | #52 | 1,720 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 2011 | 19–21 | 47.5% | #57 | 1,689 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 25 | 2012 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #68 | 1,701 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #455 | 1,538 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2013 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #25 | 1,801 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2014 | 16–17 | 48.5% | #64 | 1,689 | 0 | 2 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #258 | 1,519 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2015 | 11–17 | 39.3% | #115 | 1,609 | 0 | 2 | 2010 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #96 | 1,554 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2016 | 28–16 | 63.6% | #16 | 1,778 | 0 | 2 | 2011 | 8–14 | 36.4% | #129 | 1,551 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 2017 | 25–26 | 49.0% | #18 | 1,691 | 0 | 3 | 2012 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #105 | 1,535 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | 2018 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #137 | 1,679 | 0 | 3 | 2013 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #110 | 1,563 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 12–8 | 60.0% | #60 | 1,706 | 0 | 3 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 17–26 | 39.5% | #68 | 1,657 | 0 | 3 |
| 34 | 2021 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #310 | 1,689 | 0 | 3 | 2016 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #80 | 1,629 | 0 | 3 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #32 | 1,698 | 0 | 3 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2018 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #327 | 1,689 | 0 | 3 |