H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:32 UTC
Irina-Camelia Begu vs Kurumi Nara H2H: 2-0
Irina-Camelia Begu holds a 2–0 lead over Kurumi Nara in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Irina-Camelia Begu leads 2–0 on clay. Most recently, Irina-Camelia Begu won the 2015 Madrid second round 7-6(6) 6-1.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
ROU
Age 35
Right-Handed
181 cm / 5'11"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
JPN
Age 34
Right-Handed
155 cm / 5'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 6, 2015* | Madrid | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Irina-Camelia Begu | 7-6(6) 6-1 | Kurumi Nara | Match data |
| May 1, 2014* | Oeiras | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Irina-Camelia Begu | 6-1 7-6(5) | Kurumi Nara | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Irina-Camelia Begu | #204 | #22 | 1,925 | 1,886 | 249 | 234 | 51.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| Kurumi Nara | #246 | #32 | 1,412 | 1,700 | 82 | 116 | 41.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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 | Irina-Camelia Begu | Kurumi Nara | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #181 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #234 | 1,493 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #130 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #202 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #140 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2011 | 16–11 | 59.3% | #40 | 1,657 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #148 | 1,437 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2012 | 22–18 | 55.0% | #52 | 1,729 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #81 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2013 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #131 | 1,559 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #44 | 1,649 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2014 | 14–15 | 48.3% | #41 | 1,617 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #81 | 1,588 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2015 | 30–20 | 60.0% | #31 | 1,711 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #77 | 1,595 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2016 | 25–18 | 58.1% | #29 | 1,711 | 0 | 3 | 2017 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #102 | 1,581 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2017 | 20–22 | 47.6% | #43 | 1,667 | 0 | 4 | 2018 | 0–13 | 0.0% | #161 | 1,493 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2018 | 19–24 | 44.2% | #67 | 1,601 | 0 | 4 | 2019 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #140 | 1,569 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2019 | 11–16 | 40.7% | #102 | 1,555 | 0 | 4 | 2020 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #160 | 1,561 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2020 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #78 | 1,710 | 0 | 4 | 2021 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #185 | 1,514 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2021 | 17–15 | 53.1% | #62 | 1,736 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2022 | 25–15 | 62.5% | #34 | 1,834 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2023 | 17–14 | 54.8% | #75 | 1,781 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2024 | 10–7 | 58.8% | #79 | 1,807 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2025 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #144 | 1,760 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2026 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #204 | 1,726 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |