H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Lesia Tsurenko vs Timea Bacsinszky H2H: 0-4
Timea Bacsinszky holds a 4–0 lead over Lesia Tsurenko in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Timea Bacsinszky leads 3–0 on hard courts and 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Timea Bacsinszky won the 2016 Cincinnati third round 6-3 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
0
–
4
4 main draw meetings
SUI
Age 37
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 18, 2016* | Cincinnati | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Timea Bacsinszky | 6-3 6-0 | Lesia Tsurenko | Match data |
| May 12, 2016* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R32 | Clay | Timea Bacsinszky | 6-2 6-4 | Lesia Tsurenko | Match data |
| Mar 6, 2015* | Monterrey | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Timea Bacsinszky | 4-6 6-4 6-4 | Lesia Tsurenko | Match data |
| Feb 27, 2015* | Acapulco | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Timea Bacsinszky | 6-2 7-6(4) | 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 |
| Timea Bacsinszky | #941 | #9 | 3,157 | 1,933 | 161 | 137 | 54.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
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 | Timea Bacsinszky | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #252 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #124 | 1,541 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #122 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #54 | 1,592 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #284 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 17–10 | 63.0% | #53 | 1,739 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2010 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #155 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 19–21 | 47.5% | #50 | 1,693 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2011 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #113 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #247 | 1,662 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2012 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #116 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #179 | 1,602 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2013 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #68 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #237 | 1,596 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2014 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #92 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 11–10 | 52.4% | #48 | 1,678 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2015 | 22–17 | 56.4% | #33 | 1,738 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 37–14 | 72.5% | #12 | 1,842 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 2016 | 19–19 | 50.0% | #57 | 1,728 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 32–17 | 65.3% | #15 | 1,777 | 0 | 4 |
| 28 | 2017 | 22–24 | 47.8% | #42 | 1,699 | 0 | 3 | 2017 | 15–9 | 62.5% | #39 | 1,816 | 0 | 4 |
| 29 | 2018 | 26–18 | 59.1% | #27 | 1,814 | 0 | 4 | 2018 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #191 | 1,725 | 0 | 4 |
| 30 | 2019 | 14–14 | 50.0% | #73 | 1,734 | 0 | 4 | 2019 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #139 | 1,630 | 0 | 4 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |