H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Magdalena Maleeva vs Tatiana Panova H2H: 4-0
Magdalena Maleeva holds a 4–0 lead over Tatiana Panova in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Magdalena Maleeva leads 2–0 on carpet and 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Magdalena Maleeva won the 2001 Leipzig fourth round 6-2 2-6 6-3.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
BUL
Age 51
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H
4
–
0
4 main draw meetings
RUS
Age 49
Right-Handed
154 cm / 5'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 28, 2001* | Leipzig | WTA 500 | R16 | Carpet | Magdalena Maleeva | 6-2 2-6 6-3 | Tatiana Panova | Match data |
| Feb 2, 2001* | Tokyo | WTA 1000 | R16 | Carpet | Magdalena Maleeva | 7-6(5) 6-2 | Tatiana Panova | Match data |
| Nov 19, 1999* | Pattaya | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Magdalena Maleeva | 6-2 3-6 7-6 | Tatiana Panova | Match data |
| Jul 8, 1999* | Portschach | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Magdalena Maleeva | 6-0 6-0 | Tatiana Panova | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Magdalena Maleeva | #401 | #4 | 1,834 | 2,083 | 384 | 272 | 58.5% | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 10 |
| Tatiana Panova | #1,113 | #20 | 1,270 | 1,782 | 130 | 196 | 39.9% | 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 | Magdalena Maleeva | Tatiana Panova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | 1989 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #216 | 1,497 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 15 | 1990 | 12–10 | 54.5% | #72 | 1,654 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1991 | 17–15 | 53.1% | #38 | 1,718 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1992 | 28–14 | 66.7% | #20 | 1,908 | 0 | 1 | 1994 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #142 | 1,508 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1993 | 36–16 | 69.2% | #16 | 1,962 | 0 | 1 | 1995 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #179 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1994 | 31–12 | 72.1% | #11 | 1,980 | 0 | 3 | 1996 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #159 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1995 | 37–12 | 75.5% | #6 | 2,029 | 0 | 6 | 1997 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #97 | 1,475 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1996 | 18–15 | 54.5% | #19 | 1,908 | 0 | 6 | 1998 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #78 | 1,472 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1997 | 21–22 | 48.8% | #36 | 1,746 | 0 | 6 | 1999 | 14–23 | 37.8% | #40 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1998 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #116 | 1,713 | 0 | 6 | 2000 | 23–28 | 45.1% | #34 | 1,698 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1999 | 12–8 | 60.0% | #76 | 1,737 | 0 | 7 | 2001 | 22–30 | 42.3% | #40 | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2000 | 25–25 | 50.0% | #23 | 1,813 | 0 | 7 | 2002 | 34–31 | 52.3% | #23 | 1,752 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2001 | 35–24 | 59.3% | #16 | 1,849 | 0 | 8 | 2003 | 7–13 | 35.0% | #114 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2002 | 35–24 | 59.3% | #14 | 1,855 | 0 | 9 | 2004 | 8–14 | 36.4% | #77 | 1,595 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2003 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #30 | 1,746 | 0 | 10 | 2005 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #91 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2004 | 27–24 | 52.9% | #25 | 1,710 | 0 | 10 | 2006 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #376 | 1,470 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2005 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #53 | 1,682 | 0 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |