H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 10:30 UTC
Julia Goerges vs Zarina Diyas H2H: 1-0
Julia Goerges holds a 1–0 lead over Zarina Diyas in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Julia Goerges leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Julia Goerges won the 2015 Toronto second round 2-6 6-1 7-5.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
GER
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
KAZ
Age 32
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 12, 2015* | Toronto | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Julia Goerges | 2-6 6-1 7-5 | Zarina Diyas | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Julia Goerges | #45 | #9 | 3,980 | 1,940 | 304 | 249 | 55.0% | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 7 |
| Zarina Diyas | #437 | #31 | 1,495 | 1,751 | 99 | 127 | 43.8% | 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.
| Julia Goerges | Zarina Diyas | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2007 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #126 | 1,543 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #242 | 1,527 | 0 | 0 |
| 2008 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #108 | 1,557 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #172 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 |
| 2009 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #77 | 1,588 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #227 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 29–22 | 56.9% | #40 | 1,760 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #264 | 1,476 | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 | 36–24 | 60.0% | #21 | 1,772 | 0 | 2 | 2013 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #163 | 1,477 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 34–25 | 57.6% | #18 | 1,751 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 20–14 | 58.8% | #33 | 1,683 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 14–27 | 34.1% | #72 | 1,535 | 0 | 2 | 2015 | 20–27 | 42.6% | #52 | 1,576 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #74 | 1,596 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #150 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #50 | 1,612 | 0 | 2 | 2017 | 7–4 | 63.6% | #66 | 1,667 | 0 | 1 |
| 2016 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #53 | 1,671 | 0 | 2 | 2018 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #89 | 1,718 | 0 | 1 |
| 2017 | 42–22 | 65.6% | #14 | 1,880 | 0 | 4 | 2019 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #77 | 1,697 | 0 | 1 |
| 2018 | 44–22 | 66.7% | #14 | 1,861 | 0 | 6 | 2020 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #80 | 1,655 | 0 | 1 |
| 2019 | 26–20 | 56.5% | #28 | 1,799 | 0 | 7 | 2021 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #102 | 1,688 | 0 | 1 |
| 2020 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #45 | 1,761 | 0 | 7 | 2022 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1031 | 1,680 | 0 | 1 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2024 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #382 | 1,632 | 0 | 1 |