H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Madison Keys vs Mirjana Lucic-Baroni H2H: 2-0
Madison Keys holds a 2–0 lead over Mirjana Lucic-Baroni in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Madison Keys leads 2–0 on clay. Most recently, Madison Keys won the 2015 Strasbourg fourth round 4-6 7-6(3) 7-6(0).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
USA
Age 31
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
CRO
Age 44
Right-Handed
181 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 22, 2015* | Strasbourg | WTA 500 | R16 | Clay | Madison Keys | 4-6 7-6(3) 7-6(0) | Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | Match data |
| Apr 2, 2014* | Charleston | WTA 500 | R64 | Clay | Madison Keys | 7-6(0) 7-6(3) | Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Madison Keys | #23 | #5 | 4,999 | 2,136 | 363 | 211 | 63.2% | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 3 | 11 |
| Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | #424 | #20 | 1,924 | 1,798 | 136 | 166 | 45.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 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 | Madison Keys | Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | 2009 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #616 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1997 | 11–3 | 78.6% | #49 | 1,692 | 0 | 1 |
| 16 | 2011 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #273 | 1,516 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 15–11 | 57.7% | #51 | 1,776 | 0 | 2 |
| 17 | 2012 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #137 | 1,514 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #48 | 1,757 | 0 | 2 |
| 18 | 2013 | 24–17 | 58.5% | #38 | 1,726 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 2–12 | 14.3% | #202 | 1,601 | 0 | 2 |
| 19 | 2014 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #30 | 1,742 | 0 | 1 | 2001 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #192 | 1,596 | 0 | 2 |
| 20 | 2015 | 31–19 | 62.0% | #18 | 1,802 | 0 | 1 | 2002 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #203 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 2016 | 41–16 | 71.9% | #8 | 1,915 | 0 | 2 | 2003 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #348 | 1,526 | 0 | 2 |
| 22 | 2017 | 17–10 | 63.0% | #19 | 1,892 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 23 | 2018 | 28–15 | 65.1% | #17 | 1,899 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 2019 | 27–13 | 67.5% | #13 | 1,910 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 25 | 2020 | 8–5 | 61.5% | #16 | 1,866 | 0 | 5 | 2007 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #455 | 1,538 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2021 | 11–15 | 42.3% | #56 | 1,731 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2022 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #11 | 1,863 | 0 | 6 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #258 | 1,519 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2023 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #12 | 1,879 | 0 | 7 | 2010 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #96 | 1,554 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2024 | 25–12 | 67.6% | #21 | 1,950 | 0 | 8 | 2011 | 8–14 | 36.4% | #129 | 1,551 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 2025 | 37–15 | 71.2% | #7 | 1,964 | 1 | 10 | 2012 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #105 | 1,535 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | 2026 | 25–10 | 71.4% | #23 | 2,020 | 1 | 11 | 2013 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #110 | 1,563 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 12–8 | 60.0% | #60 | 1,706 | 0 | 3 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 17–26 | 39.5% | #68 | 1,657 | 0 | 3 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2016 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #80 | 1,629 | 0 | 3 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #32 | 1,698 | 0 | 3 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2018 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #327 | 1,689 | 0 | 3 |