H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Laura Siegemund vs Mirjana Lucic-Baroni H2H: 2-0
Laura Siegemund holds a 2–0 lead over Mirjana Lucic-Baroni in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Laura Siegemund leads 2–0 on clay. Most recently, Laura Siegemund won the 2016 Madrid third round 6-2 3-6 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.
GER
Age 38
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
CRO
Age 44
Right-Handed
181 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 3, 2016* | Madrid | WTA 1000 | R32 | Clay | Laura Siegemund | 6-2 3-6 6-3 | Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | Match data |
| Apr 8, 2016* | Charleston | WTA 500 | R16 | Clay | Laura Siegemund | 7-5 6-2 | Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Laura Siegemund | #87 | #27 | 1,630 | 1,828 | 143 | 152 | 48.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | #424 | #20 | 1,924 | 1,798 | 136 | 166 | 45.0% | 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 | Laura Siegemund | Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1997 | 11–3 | 78.6% | #49 | 1,692 | 0 | 1 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1998 | 15–11 | 57.7% | #51 | 1,776 | 0 | 2 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1999 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #48 | 1,757 | 0 | 2 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2000 | 2–12 | 14.3% | #202 | 1,601 | 0 | 2 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2001 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #192 | 1,596 | 0 | 2 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2002 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #203 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2003 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #348 | 1,526 | 0 | 2 |
| 22 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #220 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 25 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #455 | 1,538 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2014 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,495 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2015 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #98 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #258 | 1,519 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2016 | 27–17 | 61.4% | #31 | 1,735 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #96 | 1,554 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2017 | 14–12 | 53.8% | #69 | 1,792 | 0 | 2 | 2011 | 8–14 | 36.4% | #129 | 1,551 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 2018 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #113 | 1,691 | 0 | 2 | 2012 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #105 | 1,535 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | 2019 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #75 | 1,666 | 0 | 2 | 2013 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #110 | 1,563 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | 2020 | 11–9 | 55.0% | #51 | 1,762 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 12–8 | 60.0% | #60 | 1,706 | 0 | 3 |
| 33 | 2021 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #125 | 1,727 | 0 | 2 | 2015 | 17–26 | 39.5% | #68 | 1,657 | 0 | 3 |
| 34 | 2022 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #177 | 1,652 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #80 | 1,629 | 0 | 3 |
| 35 | 2023 | 13–11 | 54.2% | #86 | 1,784 | 0 | 2 | 2017 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #32 | 1,698 | 0 | 3 |
| 36 | 2024 | 17–16 | 51.5% | #80 | 1,738 | 0 | 2 | 2018 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #327 | 1,689 | 0 | 3 |
| 37 | 2025 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #46 | 1,803 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2026 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #87 | 1,748 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |