H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Flavia Pennetta vs Elena Dementieva H2H: 0-1
Elena Dementieva holds a 1–0 lead over Flavia Pennetta in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Elena Dementieva leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Elena Dementieva won the 2010 Tokyo fourth round 6-4 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.
ITA
Age 44
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
RUS
Age 44
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 1, 2010* | Tokyo | WTA 1000 | R16 | Hard | Elena Dementieva | 6-4 6-2 | Flavia Pennetta | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flavia Pennetta | #15 | #6 | 3,621 | 1,982 | 418 | 272 | 60.6% | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 3 | 11 |
| Elena Dementieva | #10 | #3 | 8,286 | 2,108 | 472 | 243 | 66.0% | 0 | 3 | 0 | 9 | 3 | 15 |
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 | Flavia Pennetta | Elena Dementieva | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #349 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1998 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #186 | 1,478 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1999 | 11–11 | 50.0% | #62 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2000 | 33–19 | 63.5% | #11 | 1,859 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2001 | 34–22 | 60.7% | #15 | 1,833 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2002 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #95 | 1,482 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 36–26 | 58.1% | #19 | 1,763 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2003 | 18–20 | 47.4% | #69 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 47–25 | 65.3% | #8 | 1,966 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2004 | 30–22 | 57.7% | #38 | 1,670 | 0 | 1 | 2004 | 40–22 | 64.5% | #6 | 1,986 | 0 | 4 |
| 23 | 2005 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #23 | 1,777 | 0 | 3 | 2005 | 41–22 | 65.1% | #8 | 1,925 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 2006 | 29–18 | 61.7% | #28 | 1,729 | 0 | 3 | 2006 | 45–21 | 68.2% | #8 | 1,908 | 0 | 6 |
| 25 | 2007 | 30–24 | 55.6% | #39 | 1,768 | 0 | 4 | 2007 | 41–18 | 69.5% | #11 | 1,964 | 0 | 8 |
| 26 | 2008 | 50–23 | 68.5% | #13 | 1,900 | 0 | 6 | 2008 | 50–17 | 74.6% | #4 | 2,014 | 0 | 10 |
| 27 | 2009 | 52–23 | 69.3% | #12 | 1,902 | 0 | 8 | 2009 | 55–18 | 75.3% | #5 | 1,981 | 0 | 13 |
| 28 | 2010 | 45–23 | 66.2% | #24 | 1,847 | 0 | 9 | 2010 | 39–19 | 67.2% | #9 | 1,928 | 0 | 15 |
| 29 | 2011 | 31–22 | 58.5% | #20 | 1,785 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2012 | 19–13 | 59.4% | #45 | 1,735 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2013 | 19–20 | 48.7% | #31 | 1,745 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2014 | 30–20 | 60.0% | #12 | 1,780 | 0 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2015 | 27–20 | 57.4% | #8 | 1,823 | 1 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |