H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Jill Craybas vs Elena Likhovtseva H2H: 1-3
Elena Likhovtseva holds a 3–1 lead over Jill Craybas in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while Elena Likhovtseva leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Jill Craybas won the 2005 Indian Wells second round 6-1 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.
USA
Age 52
Right-Handed
160 cm / 5'3"
H2H
1
–
3
4 main draw meetings
RUS
Age 50
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 11, 2005* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Jill Craybas | 6-1 6-4 | Elena Likhovtseva | Match data |
| Feb 5, 2005* | Tokyo | WTA 1000 | R16 | Carpet | Elena Likhovtseva | 7-5 4-6 6-2 | Jill Craybas | Match data |
| Jan 11, 2003* | Hobart | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Elena Likhovtseva | 7-5 6-3 | Jill Craybas | Match data |
| Jun 27, 2001* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R128 | Grass | Elena Likhovtseva | 6-3 6-4 | Jill Craybas | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jill Craybas | #336 | #39 | 974 | 1,695 | 161 | 256 | 38.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Elena Likhovtseva | #1,092 | #15 | 1,807 | 1,912 | 358 | 338 | 51.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
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 | Jill Craybas | Elena Likhovtseva | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1993 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #67 | 1,633 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1994 | 17–19 | 47.2% | #62 | 1,736 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 18–18 | 50.0% | #45 | 1,718 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1996 | 30–21 | 58.8% | #18 | 1,819 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 1996 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,488 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 24–24 | 50.0% | #31 | 1,749 | 0 | 2 |
| 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1998 | 35–29 | 54.7% | #26 | 1,829 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 1998 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #154 | 1,473 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 34–29 | 54.0% | #18 | 1,755 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 1999 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #175 | 1,445 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 29–27 | 51.8% | #21 | 1,770 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #145 | 1,449 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 25–24 | 51.0% | #36 | 1,746 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2001 | 8–17 | 32.0% | #98 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 24–27 | 47.1% | #42 | 1,666 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2002 | 19–15 | 55.9% | #57 | 1,652 | 0 | 1 | 2003 | 26–26 | 50.0% | #37 | 1,678 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2003 | 16–22 | 42.1% | #99 | 1,568 | 0 | 1 | 2004 | 26–24 | 52.0% | #24 | 1,828 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2004 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #59 | 1,499 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 30–22 | 57.7% | #17 | 1,795 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2005 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #48 | 1,614 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 16–20 | 44.4% | #43 | 1,695 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 2006 | 18–25 | 41.9% | #70 | 1,569 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 13–17 | 43.3% | #62 | 1,665 | 0 | 3 |
| 32 | 2007 | 12–27 | 30.8% | #79 | 1,472 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #1044 | 1,634 | 0 | 3 |
| 33 | 2008 | 22–25 | 46.8% | #64 | 1,575 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2009 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #76 | 1,592 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2010 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #98 | 1,546 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2011 | 6–20 | 23.1% | #150 | 1,442 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 2012 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #189 | 1,449 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2013 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #336 | 1,451 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |