H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:32 UTC
Elise Mertens vs Lesia Tsurenko H2H: 1-1
Elise Mertens and Lesia Tsurenko are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Lesia Tsurenko leads 1–0 on grass, while Elise Mertens leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Elise Mertens won the 2020 Shenzhen third round 6-3 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.
BEL
Age 30
Right-Handed
179 cm / 5'10"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
UKR
Age 37
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 8, 2020* | Shenzhen | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Elise Mertens | 6-3 6-3 | Lesia Tsurenko | Match data |
| Jun 15, 2017* | S-Hertogenbosch | WTA 250 | R32 | Grass | Lesia Tsurenko | 6-4 6-1 | Elise Mertens | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elise Mertens | #24 | #12 | 3,685 | 2,013 | 311 | 199 | 61.0% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8 | 10 |
| Lesia Tsurenko | #370 | #23 | 2,030 | 1,889 | 180 | 200 | 47.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
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 | Elise Mertens | Lesia Tsurenko | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 20 | 2016 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #125 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #284 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2017 | 30–22 | 57.7% | #35 | 1,737 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #155 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2018 | 43–19 | 69.4% | #12 | 1,821 | 0 | 4 | 2011 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #113 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2019 | 33–24 | 57.9% | #17 | 1,836 | 0 | 5 | 2012 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #116 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2020 | 32–13 | 71.1% | #20 | 1,934 | 0 | 5 | 2013 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #68 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2021 | 33–18 | 64.7% | #21 | 1,856 | 0 | 6 | 2014 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #92 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2022 | 28–21 | 57.1% | #29 | 1,795 | 0 | 7 | 2015 | 22–17 | 56.4% | #33 | 1,738 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2023 | 26–21 | 55.3% | #29 | 1,819 | 0 | 8 | 2016 | 19–19 | 50.0% | #57 | 1,728 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2024 | 27–25 | 51.9% | #34 | 1,788 | 0 | 8 | 2017 | 22–24 | 47.8% | #42 | 1,699 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2025 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #20 | 1,866 | 0 | 10 | 2018 | 26–18 | 59.1% | #27 | 1,814 | 0 | 4 |
| 30 | 2026 | 20–13 | 60.6% | #24 | 1,908 | 0 | 10 | 2019 | 14–14 | 50.0% | #73 | 1,734 | 0 | 4 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2020 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #146 | 1,746 | 0 | 4 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2021 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #118 | 1,738 | 0 | 4 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #137 | 1,745 | 0 | 4 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 24–15 | 61.5% | #31 | 1,866 | 0 | 4 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2024 | 10–20 | 33.3% | #115 | 1,693 | 0 | 4 |