H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Kurumi Nara vs Marina Erakovic H2H: 1-1
Kurumi Nara and Marina Erakovic are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Marina Erakovic leads 1–0 on clay, while Kurumi Nara leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Marina Erakovic won the 2016 Bol third round 3-3 RET.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
JPN
Age 34
Right-Handed
155 cm / 5'1"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
NZL
Age 38
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 2, 2016* | Bol | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Marina Erakovic | 3-3 (ret.) | Kurumi Nara | Match data |
| Jul 28, 2014 | Washington | WTA 250 | SF | Hard | Kurumi Nara | 0-6 6-4 6-4 | Marina Erakovic | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kurumi Nara | #246 | #32 | 1,412 | 1,700 | 82 | 116 | 41.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 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 | Kurumi Nara | Marina Erakovic | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 2009 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #181 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #213 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2010 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #130 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2011 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #140 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #153 | 1,457 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2012 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #148 | 1,437 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #66 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2013 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #81 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 4–7 | 36.4% | #227 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2014 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #44 | 1,649 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #333 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2015 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #81 | 1,588 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #61 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2016 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #77 | 1,595 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 19–20 | 48.7% | #66 | 1,600 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2017 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #102 | 1,581 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #46 | 1,673 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2018 | 0–13 | 0.0% | #161 | 1,493 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 12–20 | 37.5% | #76 | 1,609 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2019 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #140 | 1,569 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #135 | 1,543 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2020 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #160 | 1,561 | 0 | 1 | 2016 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #106 | 1,625 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2021 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #185 | 1,514 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | 1–9 | 10.0% | #197 | 1,551 | 0 | 1 |