H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Heather Watson vs Sara Errani H2H: 1-1
Heather Watson and Sara Errani are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Heather Watson leads 1–0 on clay, while Sara Errani leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Heather Watson won the 2016 Rome second round 6-4 3-6 6-0.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
GBR
Age 34
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
ITA
Age 39
Right-Handed
164 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 8, 2021 | Rome | WTA 1000 | Q1 | Clay | Sara Errani | 6-3 6-2 | Heather Watson | Match data |
| Mar 4, 2019 | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | Q1 | Hard | Sara Errani | 6-2 6-7(3) 6-4 | Heather Watson | Match data |
| May 11, 2016* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Heather Watson | 6-4 3-6 6-0 | Sara Errani | Match data |
| Sep 24, 2014* | Wuhan | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Sara Errani | 7-5 6-4 | Heather Watson | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heather Watson | #470 | #38 | 1,386 | 1,755 | 144 | 195 | 42.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Sara Errani | #461 | #5 | 5,835 | 2,024 | 384 | 299 | 56.2% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 9 |
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 | Heather Watson | Sara Errani | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 2010 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #176 | 1,472 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2011 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #92 | 1,537 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #174 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2012 | 17–16 | 51.5% | #49 | 1,690 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 10–7 | 58.8% | #69 | 1,615 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2013 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #121 | 1,550 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 29–21 | 58.0% | #42 | 1,747 | 0 | 2 |
| 22 | 2014 | 9–17 | 34.6% | #49 | 1,555 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 25–27 | 48.1% | #47 | 1,656 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2015 | 18–19 | 48.6% | #55 | 1,614 | 0 | 2 | 2010 | 36–29 | 55.4% | #43 | 1,720 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 2016 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #76 | 1,584 | 0 | 3 | 2011 | 30–26 | 53.6% | #45 | 1,671 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 2017 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #73 | 1,626 | 0 | 3 | 2012 | 53–19 | 73.6% | #6 | 1,901 | 0 | 6 |
| 26 | 2018 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #91 | 1,584 | 0 | 3 | 2013 | 46–22 | 67.6% | #7 | 1,894 | 0 | 7 |
| 27 | 2019 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #103 | 1,622 | 0 | 3 | 2014 | 35–23 | 60.3% | #14 | 1,773 | 0 | 7 |
| 28 | 2020 | 9–8 | 52.9% | #58 | 1,663 | 0 | 4 | 2015 | 46–26 | 63.9% | #20 | 1,752 | 0 | 8 |
| 29 | 2021 | 7–16 | 30.4% | #72 | 1,590 | 0 | 4 | 2016 | 18–21 | 46.2% | #49 | 1,625 | 0 | 9 |
| 30 | 2022 | 9–12 | 42.9% | #139 | 1,569 | 0 | 4 | 2017 | 17–15 | 53.1% | #144 | 1,650 | 0 | 9 |
| 31 | 2023 | 8–7 | 53.3% | #137 | 1,598 | 0 | 4 | 2018 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #112 | 1,765 | 0 | 9 |
| 32 | 2024 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #162 | 1,570 | 0 | 4 | 2019 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #198 | 1,567 | 0 | 9 |
| 33 | 2025 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #269 | 1,545 | 0 | 4 | 2020 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #131 | 1,604 | 0 | 9 |
| 34 | 2026 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #470 | 1,592 | 0 | 4 | 2021 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #121 | 1,579 | 0 | 9 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #109 | 1,597 | 0 | 9 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #105 | 1,550 | 0 | 9 |
| 37 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2024 | 10–13 | 43.5% | #105 | 1,699 | 0 | 9 |
| 38 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2025 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #461 | 1,594 | 0 | 9 |