H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:32 UTC
Jil Teichmann vs Anastasija Sevastova H2H: 1-1
Jil Teichmann and Anastasija Sevastova are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Anastasija Sevastova leads 1–0 on clay, while Jil Teichmann leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Anastasija Sevastova won the 2021 Rome second round 3-6 6-1 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.
SUI
Age 29
Left-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
LAT
Age 36
Right-Handed
169 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 12, 2021* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Anastasija Sevastova | 3-6 6-1 6-3 | Jil Teichmann | Match data |
| Feb 27, 2021* | Adelaide | WTA 500 | QF | Hard | Jil Teichmann | 6-4 6-7(8) 7-5 | Anastasija Sevastova | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jil Teichmann | #119 | #21 | 2,101 | 1,876 | 98 | 107 | 47.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Anastasija Sevastova | #293 | #11 | 3,366 | 1,946 | 207 | 175 | 54.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
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 | Jil Teichmann | Anastasija Sevastova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #261 | 1,510 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2016 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #209 | 1,524 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2017 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #139 | 1,523 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #79 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2018 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #148 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 22–15 | 59.5% | #45 | 1,718 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2019 | 14–11 | 56.0% | #69 | 1,632 | 0 | 2 | 2011 | 12–18 | 40.0% | #98 | 1,628 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2020 | 9–12 | 42.9% | #57 | 1,671 | 0 | 2 | 2012 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #184 | 1,610 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2021 | 23–20 | 53.5% | #37 | 1,766 | 0 | 2 | 2013 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #148 | 1,622 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2022 | 19–21 | 47.5% | #35 | 1,690 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 25 | 2023 | 11–20 | 35.5% | #147 | 1,613 | 0 | 2 | 2015 | 5–3 | 62.5% | #113 | 1,654 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2024 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #135 | 1,633 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 22–19 | 53.7% | #34 | 1,715 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2025 | 8–9 | 47.1% | #123 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 | 2017 | 37–24 | 60.7% | #16 | 1,820 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2026 | 6–2 | 75.0% | #119 | 1,709 | 0 | 2 | 2018 | 42–21 | 66.7% | #11 | 1,909 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2019 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #27 | 1,759 | 0 | 4 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2020 | 1–9 | 10.0% | #54 | 1,649 | 0 | 4 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2021 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #70 | 1,739 | 0 | 4 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #680 | 1,722 | 0 | 4 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2024 | 4–2 | 66.7% | #481 | 1,728 | 0 | 4 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2025 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #188 | 1,730 | 0 | 4 |