H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 10:32 UTC
Madison Keys vs Patricia Maria Tig H2H: 0-1
Patricia Maria Tig holds a 1–0 lead over Madison Keys in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Patricia Maria Tig leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Patricia Maria Tig won the 2016 Madrid fourth round 6-3 6-4.
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
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
ROU
Age 31
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 5, 2016* | Madrid | WTA 1000 | R16 | Clay | Patricia Maria Tig | 6-3 6-4 | Madison Keys | 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 |
| Patricia Maria Tig | #417 | #56 | 1,284 | 1,739 | 40 | 52 | 43.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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 | Patricia Maria Tig | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 2011 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #273 | 1,516 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2012 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #137 | 1,514 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2013 | 24–17 | 58.5% | #38 | 1,726 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2014 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #30 | 1,742 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 2015 | 31–19 | 62.0% | #18 | 1,802 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #123 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2016 | 41–16 | 71.9% | #8 | 1,915 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #108 | 1,520 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2017 | 17–10 | 63.0% | #19 | 1,892 | 0 | 3 | 2017 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #232 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2018 | 28–15 | 65.1% | #17 | 1,899 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 2019 | 27–13 | 67.5% | #13 | 1,910 | 0 | 5 | 2019 | 8–4 | 66.7% | #114 | 1,652 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2020 | 8–5 | 61.5% | #16 | 1,866 | 0 | 5 | 2020 | 11–5 | 68.8% | #56 | 1,724 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2021 | 11–15 | 42.3% | #56 | 1,731 | 0 | 5 | 2021 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #225 | 1,623 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2022 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #11 | 1,863 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2023 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #12 | 1,879 | 0 | 7 | 2023 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #436 | 1,535 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2024 | 25–12 | 67.6% | #21 | 1,950 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2025 | 37–15 | 71.2% | #7 | 1,964 | 1 | 10 | 2025 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #400 | 1,470 | 0 | 1 |
| 31 | 2026 | 25–10 | 71.4% | #23 | 2,020 | 1 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |