H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Lesia Tsurenko vs Elena Vesnina H2H: 0-1
Elena Vesnina holds a 1–0 lead over Lesia Tsurenko in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Elena Vesnina leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Elena Vesnina won the 2010 Tashkent third round 6-3 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
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
RUS
Age 39
Right-Handed
176 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 23, 2010* | Tashkent | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Elena Vesnina | 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 |
| Elena Vesnina | #573 | #13 | 3,320 | 1,858 | 262 | 260 | 50.2% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 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 | Elena Vesnina | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #259 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #106 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 20–24 | 45.5% | #47 | 1,617 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #284 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 17–21 | 44.7% | #54 | 1,631 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2010 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #155 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 12–19 | 38.7% | #79 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2011 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #113 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 31–20 | 60.8% | #23 | 1,767 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2012 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #116 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 22–22 | 50.0% | #52 | 1,720 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2013 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #68 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 19–21 | 47.5% | #57 | 1,689 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2014 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #92 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #68 | 1,701 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2015 | 22–17 | 56.4% | #33 | 1,738 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #25 | 1,801 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2016 | 19–19 | 50.0% | #57 | 1,728 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 16–17 | 48.5% | #64 | 1,689 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2017 | 22–24 | 47.8% | #42 | 1,699 | 0 | 3 | 2015 | 11–17 | 39.3% | #115 | 1,609 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2018 | 26–18 | 59.1% | #27 | 1,814 | 0 | 4 | 2016 | 28–16 | 63.6% | #16 | 1,778 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 2019 | 14–14 | 50.0% | #73 | 1,734 | 0 | 4 | 2017 | 25–26 | 49.0% | #18 | 1,691 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 2020 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #146 | 1,746 | 0 | 4 | 2018 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #137 | 1,679 | 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 | 2021 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #310 | 1,689 | 0 | 3 |
| 35 | 2024 | 10–20 | 33.3% | #115 | 1,693 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |