H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Lesia Tsurenko vs Coco Vandeweghe H2H: 2-1
Lesia Tsurenko holds a 2–1 lead over Coco Vandeweghe in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while Lesia Tsurenko leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Lesia Tsurenko won the 2018 Roland Garros second round 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
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
USA
Age 34
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 19, 2023 | Miami | WTA 1000 | Q1 | Hard | Lesia Tsurenko | 6-3 6-3 | Coco Vandeweghe | Match data |
| May 31, 2018* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R64 | Clay | Lesia Tsurenko | 3-6 6-4 6-0 | Coco Vandeweghe | Match data |
| Oct 18, 2017 | Moscow | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Lesia Tsurenko | 7-5 1-6 6-2 | Coco Vandeweghe | Match data |
| Sep 30, 2015* | Wuhan | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Coco Vandeweghe | 6-2 2-6 6-3 | 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 |
| Coco Vandeweghe | #815 | #9 | 3,258 | 1,877 | 138 | 151 | 47.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
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 | Coco Vandeweghe | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,484 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #549 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #476 | 1,453 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #322 | 1,465 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #116 | 1,566 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #122 | 1,544 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #284 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #97 | 1,606 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2010 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #155 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 5–11 | 31.2% | #113 | 1,563 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2011 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #113 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 22–14 | 61.1% | #39 | 1,731 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2012 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #116 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #37 | 1,726 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2013 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #68 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 22–17 | 56.4% | #36 | 1,726 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 2014 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #92 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 29–18 | 61.7% | #10 | 1,856 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2015 | 22–17 | 56.4% | #33 | 1,738 | 0 | 1 | 2018 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #100 | 1,688 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2016 | 19–19 | 50.0% | #57 | 1,728 | 0 | 2 | 2019 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #241 | 1,688 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2017 | 22–24 | 47.8% | #42 | 1,699 | 0 | 3 | 2020 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #214 | 1,624 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2018 | 26–18 | 59.1% | #27 | 1,814 | 0 | 4 | 2021 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #174 | 1,592 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 2019 | 14–14 | 50.0% | #73 | 1,734 | 0 | 4 | 2022 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #128 | 1,666 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | 2020 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #146 | 1,746 | 0 | 4 | 2023 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #420 | 1,533 | 0 | 2 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |