H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Lesia Tsurenko vs Agnieszka Radwanska H2H: 0-2
Agnieszka Radwanska holds a 2–0 lead over Lesia Tsurenko in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Agnieszka Radwanska leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Agnieszka Radwanska won the 2018 Australian Open second round 2-6 7-5 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.
UKR
Age 37
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H
0
–
2
2 main draw meetings
POL
Age 37
Right-Handed
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 18, 2018* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Agnieszka Radwanska | 2-6 7-5 6-3 | Lesia Tsurenko | Match data |
| May 25, 2012* | Brussels | WTA 500 | R16 | Clay | Agnieszka Radwanska | 6-1 6-0 | Lesia Tsurenko | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lesia Tsurenko | #370 | #23 | 2,030 | 1,889 | 180 | 200 | 47.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| Agnieszka Radwanska | #74 | #2 | 8,530 | 2,081 | 506 | 237 | 68.1% | 0 | 5 | 1 | 8 | 6 | 20 |
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 | Lesia Tsurenko | Agnieszka Radwanska | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #61 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #26 | 1,808 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 51–19 | 72.9% | #10 | 1,926 | 0 | 4 |
| 20 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #284 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 44–23 | 65.7% | #10 | 1,910 | 0 | 4 |
| 21 | 2010 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #155 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 32–18 | 64.0% | #14 | 1,860 | 0 | 4 |
| 22 | 2011 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #113 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 46–18 | 71.9% | #8 | 1,979 | 0 | 7 |
| 23 | 2012 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #116 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 59–19 | 75.6% | #4 | 1,994 | 0 | 10 |
| 24 | 2013 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #68 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 56–20 | 73.7% | #5 | 1,957 | 0 | 13 |
| 25 | 2014 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #92 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 43–22 | 66.2% | #6 | 1,872 | 0 | 14 |
| 26 | 2015 | 22–17 | 56.4% | #33 | 1,738 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 50–22 | 69.4% | #5 | 1,957 | 0 | 17 |
| 27 | 2016 | 19–19 | 50.0% | #57 | 1,728 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 51–18 | 73.9% | #3 | 1,942 | 0 | 20 |
| 28 | 2017 | 22–24 | 47.8% | #42 | 1,699 | 0 | 3 | 2017 | 25–18 | 58.1% | #28 | 1,812 | 0 | 20 |
| 29 | 2018 | 26–18 | 59.1% | #27 | 1,814 | 0 | 4 | 2018 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #74 | 1,727 | 0 | 20 |
| 30 | 2019 | 14–14 | 50.0% | #73 | 1,734 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2020 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #146 | 1,746 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2021 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #118 | 1,738 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2022 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #137 | 1,745 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2023 | 24–15 | 61.5% | #31 | 1,866 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2024 | 10–20 | 33.3% | #115 | 1,693 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |