H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Lesia Tsurenko vs Dominika Cibulkova H2H: 1-3
Dominika Cibulkova holds a 3–1 lead over Lesia Tsurenko in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Dominika Cibulkova leads 2–0 on clay, while they are tied 1–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Dominika Cibulkova won the 2017 Toronto second round 7-6(3) 6-4.
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
–
3
4 main draw meetings
SVK
Age 37
Right-Handed
161 cm / 5'3"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 9, 2017* | Toronto | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Dominika Cibulkova | 7-6(3) 6-4 | Lesia Tsurenko | Match data |
| Sep 4, 2016* | US Open | Grand Slam | R32 | Hard | Lesia Tsurenko | 3-6 6-3 6-4 | Dominika Cibulkova | Match data |
| May 29, 2013* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R128 | Clay | Dominika Cibulkova | 6-1 6-4 | Lesia Tsurenko | Match data |
| May 8, 2013* | Madrid | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Dominika Cibulkova | 6-3 6-2 | 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 |
| Dominika Cibulkova | #315 | #4 | 5,245 | 1,966 | 365 | 261 | 58.3% | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 8 |
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 | Dominika Cibulkova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #153 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #51 | 1,605 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 34–25 | 57.6% | #19 | 1,840 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #284 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 20–17 | 54.1% | #28 | 1,733 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2010 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #155 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 30–24 | 55.6% | #31 | 1,753 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2011 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #113 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 41–21 | 66.1% | #18 | 1,893 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2012 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #116 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 34–25 | 57.6% | #15 | 1,810 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 2013 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #68 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 27–23 | 54.0% | #23 | 1,738 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2014 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #92 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 33–22 | 60.0% | #10 | 1,721 | 0 | 4 |
| 26 | 2015 | 22–17 | 56.4% | #33 | 1,738 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 19–16 | 54.3% | #38 | 1,757 | 0 | 4 |
| 27 | 2016 | 19–19 | 50.0% | #57 | 1,728 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 53–21 | 71.6% | #5 | 1,951 | 0 | 8 |
| 28 | 2017 | 22–24 | 47.8% | #42 | 1,699 | 0 | 3 | 2017 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #26 | 1,778 | 0 | 8 |
| 29 | 2018 | 26–18 | 59.1% | #27 | 1,814 | 0 | 4 | 2018 | 27–18 | 60.0% | #25 | 1,865 | 0 | 8 |
| 30 | 2019 | 14–14 | 50.0% | #73 | 1,734 | 0 | 4 | 2019 | 2–8 | 20.0% | #315 | 1,764 | 0 | 8 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |