H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Lesia Tsurenko vs Alison Riske-Amritraj H2H: 1-0
Lesia Tsurenko holds a 1–0 lead over Alison Riske-Amritraj in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Lesia Tsurenko leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Lesia Tsurenko won the 2016 Guangzhou quarterfinal 3-6 6-4 6-0.
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
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 36
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 23, 2016* | Guangzhou | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Lesia Tsurenko | 3-6 6-4 6-0 | Alison Riske-Amritraj | 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 |
| Alison Riske-Amritraj | #1,157 | #18 | 2,360 | 1,853 | 191 | 202 | 48.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 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 | Lesia Tsurenko | Alison Riske-Amritraj | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #115 | 1,554 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #284 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #136 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2010 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #155 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #180 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2011 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #113 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 11–6 | 64.7% | #57 | 1,642 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2012 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #116 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 24–22 | 52.2% | #43 | 1,713 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2013 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #68 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 15–24 | 38.5% | #97 | 1,602 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2014 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #92 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 23–19 | 54.8% | #39 | 1,742 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2015 | 22–17 | 56.4% | #33 | 1,738 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | 21–24 | 46.7% | #70 | 1,650 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2016 | 19–19 | 50.0% | #57 | 1,728 | 0 | 2 | 2018 | 17–16 | 51.5% | #62 | 1,632 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2017 | 22–24 | 47.8% | #42 | 1,699 | 0 | 3 | 2019 | 26–23 | 53.1% | #18 | 1,797 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2018 | 26–18 | 59.1% | #27 | 1,814 | 0 | 4 | 2020 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #26 | 1,739 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 2019 | 14–14 | 50.0% | #73 | 1,734 | 0 | 4 | 2021 | 16–15 | 51.6% | #51 | 1,771 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 2020 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #146 | 1,746 | 0 | 4 | 2022 | 25–21 | 54.3% | #41 | 1,750 | 0 | 3 |
| 32 | 2021 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #118 | 1,738 | 0 | 4 | 2023 | 0–8 | 0.0% | #659 | 1,614 | 0 | 3 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |