H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Lesia Tsurenko vs Junri Namigata H2H: 1-0
Lesia Tsurenko holds a 1–0 lead over Junri Namigata 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 third round 6-4 6-1.
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
JPN
Age 44
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 21, 2016* | Guangzhou | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Lesia Tsurenko | 6-4 6-1 | Junri Namigata | 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 |
| Junri Namigata | #1,159 | #105 | 641 | 1,519 | 3 | 19 | 13.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Junri Namigata | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 20 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #284 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2010 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #155 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2011 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #113 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #250 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2012 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #116 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #164 | 1,513 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2013 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #68 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #186 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2014 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #92 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #264 | 1,478 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2015 | 22–17 | 56.4% | #33 | 1,738 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #186 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2016 | 19–19 | 50.0% | #57 | 1,728 | 0 | 2 | 2010 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #112 | 1,462 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2017 | 22–24 | 47.8% | #42 | 1,699 | 0 | 3 | 2011 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #250 | 1,415 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2018 | 26–18 | 59.1% | #27 | 1,814 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2019 | 14–14 | 50.0% | #73 | 1,734 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2020 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #146 | 1,746 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2021 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #118 | 1,738 | 0 | 4 | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #294 | 1,404 | 0 | 0 |
| 33 | 2022 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #137 | 1,745 | 0 | 4 | 2016 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #254 | 1,493 | 0 | 0 |
| 34 | 2023 | 24–15 | 61.5% | #31 | 1,866 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2024 | 10–20 | 33.3% | #115 | 1,693 | 0 | 4 | 2018 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #280 | 1,434 | 0 | 0 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2019 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #347 | 1,409 | 0 | 0 |