H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 14:16 UTC
Eva Pfaff vs Hu Na H2H: 3-2
Eva Pfaff holds a 3–2 lead over Hu Na in their WTA head-to-head. Across 5 main-draw meetings, Eva Pfaff leads 2–1 on grass and 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Eva Pfaff won the 1987 Worcester fourth round 3-6 6-2 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.
GER
Age 65
Right-Handed
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H
3
–
2
5 main draw meetings
Age 63
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 6, 1987* | Worcester | WTA 250 | R16 | Carpet | Eva Pfaff | 3-6 6-2 6-4 | Hu Na | Match data |
| Jun 24, 1987* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R128 | Grass | Hu Na | 6-2 6-3 | Eva Pfaff | Match data |
| Jan 7, 1987* | Sydney | WTA 500 | R64 | Grass | Eva Pfaff | 6-0 5-7 6-3 | Hu Na | Match data |
| Jun 12, 1986* | Birmingham | WTA 250 | R32 | Grass | Eva Pfaff | 7-6 6-3 | Hu Na | Match data |
| Aug 29, 1985* | US Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Hu Na | 6-4 6-4 | Eva Pfaff | Match data |
* Estimated match date where the exact historical date is unavailable.
Career Comparison
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 | Eva Pfaff | Hu Na | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 1977 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,481 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1980 | 2–3 | 40.0% | — | 1,504 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1981 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,496 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1980 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,609 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1981 | 14–19 | 42.4% | — | 1,643 | 0 | 0 | 1983 | 1–3 | 25.0% | — | 1,482 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1982 | 18–22 | 45.0% | — | 1,777 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 1983 | 31–21 | 59.6% | — | 1,856 | 0 | 0 | 1985 | 6–9 | 40.0% | — | 1,537 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1984 | 14–14 | 50.0% | #31 | 1,797 | 0 | 0 | 1986 | 11–16 | 40.7% | — | 1,575 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1985 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #39 | 1,740 | 0 | 0 | 1987 | 17–18 | 48.6% | — | 1,654 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1986 | 14–19 | 42.4% | #58 | 1,689 | 0 | 0 | 1988 | 8–18 | 30.8% | — | 1,584 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1987 | 19–20 | 48.7% | #44 | 1,744 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 8–13 | 38.1% | — | 1,577 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1988 | 8–17 | 32.0% | #74 | 1,649 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 7–12 | 36.8% | — | 1,560 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 1989 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #104 | 1,586 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,541 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 1990 | 3–12 | 20.0% | #152 | 1,521 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 1991 | 1–10 | 9.1% | #203 | 1,469 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 1992 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #420 | 1,459 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |