H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Helena Sukova vs Lea Antonoplis H2H: 4-0
Helena Sukova holds a 4–0 lead over Lea Antonoplis in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Helena Sukova leads 3–0 on hard courts and 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Helena Sukova won the 1989 Key Biscayne second round 6-3 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.
CZE
Age 61
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H
4
–
0
4 main draw meetings
USA
Age 67
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 22, 1989* | Key Biscayne | WTA 250 | R64 | Hard | Helena Sukova | 6-3 6-4 | Lea Antonoplis | Match data |
| Nov 22, 1985* | Sydney | WTA 500 | R16 | Grass | Helena Sukova | 6-3 6-4 | Lea Antonoplis | Match data |
| Aug 23, 1985* | Monticello | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Helena Sukova | 6-1 6-4 | Lea Antonoplis | Match data |
| Aug 10, 1983* | Manhattan Beach | WTA 250 | R64 | Hard | Helena Sukova | 6-2 6-1 | Lea Antonoplis | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Helena Sukova | #102 | #4 | 735 | 2,217 | 580 | 297 | 66.1% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 9 |
| Lea Antonoplis | #599 | #66 | 6 | 1,774 | 126 | 176 | 41.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
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 | Helena Sukova | Lea Antonoplis | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1973 | 8–3 | 72.7% | — | 1,579 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1974 | 2–5 | 28.6% | — | 1,532 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 1981 | 6–4 | 60.0% | — | 1,583 | 0 | 0 | 1975 | 3–4 | 42.9% | — | 1,559 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1982 | 23–23 | 50.0% | — | 1,757 | 0 | 0 | 1976 | 7–6 | 53.8% | — | 1,626 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1983 | 33–20 | 62.3% | — | 1,907 | 0 | 0 | 1977 | 6–4 | 60.0% | — | 1,665 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1984 | 48–23 | 67.6% | #7 | 2,041 | 0 | 1 | 1978 | 17–20 | 45.9% | — | 1,717 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1985 | 54–21 | 72.0% | #9 | 2,028 | 0 | 1 | 1979 | 11–13 | 45.8% | — | 1,724 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 1986 | 69–21 | 76.7% | #6 | 2,151 | 0 | 3 | 1980 | 14–7 | 66.7% | — | 1,735 | 0 | 2 |
| 22 | 1987 | 58–19 | 75.3% | #7 | 2,129 | 0 | 5 | 1981 | 9–11 | 45.0% | — | 1,719 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 1988 | 49–19 | 72.1% | #8 | 2,120 | 0 | 5 | 1982 | 8–18 | 30.8% | — | 1,632 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 1989 | 39–15 | 72.2% | #8 | 2,043 | 0 | 6 | 1983 | 6–13 | 31.6% | — | 1,568 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 1990 | 41–17 | 70.7% | #14 | 2,025 | 0 | 6 | 1984 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #71 | 1,583 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 1991 | 34–18 | 65.4% | #17 | 1,958 | 0 | 7 | 1985 | 14–21 | 40.0% | #66 | 1,572 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 1992 | 38–15 | 71.7% | #12 | 1,976 | 0 | 9 | 1986 | 2–14 | 12.5% | #176 | 1,460 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 1993 | 24–15 | 61.5% | #17 | 1,925 | 0 | 9 | 1987 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #163 | 1,413 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 1994 | 21–14 | 60.0% | #22 | 1,889 | 0 | 9 | 1988 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #142 | 1,455 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 1995 | 18–15 | 54.5% | #29 | 1,819 | 0 | 9 | 1989 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #210 | 1,448 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | 1996 | 17–15 | 53.1% | #35 | 1,792 | 0 | 9 | 1990 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #599 | 1,432 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | 1997 | 8–21 | 27.6% | #80 | 1,661 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 1998 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #102 | 1,637 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |