H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 10:32 UTC
Karolina Pliskova vs Marina Erakovic H2H: 0-1
Marina Erakovic holds a 1–0 lead over Karolina Pliskova in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Marina Erakovic leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Marina Erakovic won the 2012 Charleston second round 6-2 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.
CZE
Age 34
Right-Handed
186 cm / 6'1"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
NZL
Age 38
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 4, 2012* | Charleston | WTA 500 | R64 | Clay | Marina Erakovic | 6-2 6-4 | Karolina Pliskova | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Karolina Pliskova | #64 | #1 | 6,940 | 2,041 | 421 | 241 | 63.6% | 0 | 3 | 0 | 9 | 5 | 17 |
| Marina Erakovic | #827 | #39 | 1,392 | 1,701 | 105 | 131 | 44.5% | 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 | Karolina Pliskova | Marina Erakovic | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #736 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 2008 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #465 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #221 | 1,521 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #213 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #212 | 1,504 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2011 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #145 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #153 | 1,457 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2012 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #118 | 1,444 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #66 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2013 | 11–15 | 42.3% | #71 | 1,514 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 4–7 | 36.4% | #227 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2014 | 44–24 | 64.7% | #23 | 1,799 | 0 | 3 | 2010 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #333 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2015 | 50–25 | 66.7% | #11 | 1,813 | 0 | 4 | 2011 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #61 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2016 | 38–19 | 66.7% | #6 | 1,901 | 0 | 6 | 2012 | 19–20 | 48.7% | #66 | 1,600 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2017 | 52–18 | 74.3% | #4 | 1,930 | 0 | 9 | 2013 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #46 | 1,673 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2018 | 46–21 | 68.7% | #8 | 1,916 | 0 | 11 | 2014 | 12–20 | 37.5% | #76 | 1,609 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2019 | 51–16 | 76.1% | #2 | 1,975 | 0 | 15 | 2015 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #135 | 1,543 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2020 | 14–8 | 63.6% | #6 | 1,914 | 0 | 16 | 2016 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #106 | 1,625 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2021 | 35–18 | 66.0% | #4 | 1,972 | 0 | 16 | 2017 | 1–9 | 10.0% | #197 | 1,551 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2022 | 21–19 | 52.5% | #31 | 1,834 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2023 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #38 | 1,759 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2024 | 20–17 | 54.1% | #41 | 1,777 | 0 | 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2026 | 19–8 | 70.4% | #64 | 1,879 | 0 | 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |