H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Jelena Kostanic Tosic vs Chanda Rubin H2H: 0-2
Chanda Rubin holds a 2–0 lead over Jelena Kostanic Tosic in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Chanda Rubin leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Chanda Rubin won the 2004 San Diego third round 6-4 6-3.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
CRO
Age 45
Left-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H
0
–
2
2 main draw meetings
USA
Age 50
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 29, 2004* | San Diego | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Chanda Rubin | 6-4 6-3 | Jelena Kostanic Tosic | Match data |
| Mar 8, 2003* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Chanda Rubin | 6-1 6-3 | Jelena Kostanic Tosic | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jelena Kostanic Tosic | #937 | #32 | 900 | 1,726 | 112 | 151 | 42.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Chanda Rubin | #1,122 | #6 | 2,554 | 2,047 | 343 | 231 | 59.8% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 7 |
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 | Jelena Kostanic Tosic | Chanda Rubin | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1990 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #526 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1991 | 8–6 | 57.1% | #84 | 1,583 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 1998 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #240 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #84 | 1,617 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1999 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #97 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 15–17 | 46.9% | #70 | 1,653 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2000 | 10–13 | 43.5% | #114 | 1,523 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 28–17 | 62.2% | #23 | 1,804 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2001 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #131 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 38–19 | 66.7% | #15 | 1,945 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2002 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #70 | 1,570 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 20–9 | 69.0% | #17 | 1,989 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2003 | 16–20 | 44.4% | #66 | 1,621 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 23–20 | 53.5% | #32 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2004 | 22–25 | 46.8% | #35 | 1,678 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #35 | 1,800 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2005 | 11–21 | 34.4% | #87 | 1,549 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 33–20 | 62.3% | #22 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 2006 | 19–18 | 51.4% | #51 | 1,577 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 42–22 | 65.6% | #13 | 1,910 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2007 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #103 | 1,534 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #52 | 1,806 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 2008 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #114 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 29–11 | 72.5% | #13 | 1,958 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2003 | 43–20 | 68.3% | #9 | 1,917 | 0 | 7 |
| 28 | 2010 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #830 | 1,460 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 16–10 | 61.5% | #52 | 1,860 | 0 | 7 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #545 | 1,823 | 0 | 7 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #486 | 1,719 | 0 | 7 |