H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Lesia Tsurenko vs Ekaterina Makarova H2H: 2-2
Lesia Tsurenko and Ekaterina Makarova are tied 2–2 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Ekaterina Makarova leads 2–1 on hard courts, while Lesia Tsurenko leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Lesia Tsurenko won the 2018 Cincinnati fourth round 7-6(5) 6-2.
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
–
2
4 main draw meetings
RUS
Age 38
Left-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 17, 2018* | Cincinnati | WTA 1000 | R16 | Hard | Lesia Tsurenko | 7-6(5) 6-2 | Ekaterina Makarova | Match data |
| Jun 1, 2017* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R64 | Clay | Lesia Tsurenko | 6-2 6-2 | Ekaterina Makarova | Match data |
| Mar 23, 2016* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Ekaterina Makarova | 3-6 6-4 6-3 | Lesia Tsurenko | Match data |
| Jan 21, 2011* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Ekaterina Makarova | 7-6(6) 6-1 | 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 |
| Ekaterina Makarova | #1,000 | #8 | 3,620 | 1,940 | 248 | 222 | 52.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 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 | Ekaterina Makarova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #110 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #284 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #46 | 1,626 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2010 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #155 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #60 | 1,634 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2011 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #113 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 14–20 | 41.2% | #49 | 1,662 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2012 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #116 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #53 | 1,604 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2013 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #68 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 26–19 | 57.8% | #20 | 1,757 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2014 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #92 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 24–18 | 57.1% | #24 | 1,838 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2015 | 22–17 | 56.4% | #33 | 1,738 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #11 | 1,837 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2016 | 19–19 | 50.0% | #57 | 1,728 | 0 | 2 | 2015 | 26–16 | 61.9% | #23 | 1,784 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2017 | 22–24 | 47.8% | #42 | 1,699 | 0 | 3 | 2016 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #30 | 1,782 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2018 | 26–18 | 59.1% | #27 | 1,814 | 0 | 4 | 2017 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #33 | 1,836 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2019 | 14–14 | 50.0% | #73 | 1,734 | 0 | 4 | 2018 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #57 | 1,750 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 2020 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #146 | 1,746 | 0 | 4 | 2019 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #997 | 1,700 | 0 | 3 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |