H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Maria Kirilenko vs Anna-Lena Groenefeld H2H: 1-1
Maria Kirilenko and Anna-Lena Groenefeld are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Anna-Lena Groenefeld leads 1–0 on clay, while Maria Kirilenko leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Anna-Lena Groenefeld won the 2006 Roland Garros third round 6-2 7-6(2).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
RUS
Age 39
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
GER
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2006* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R32 | Clay | Anna-Lena Groenefeld | 6-2 7-6(2) | Maria Kirilenko | Match data |
| Sep 25, 2005* | Beijing | WTA 500 | F | Hard | Maria Kirilenko | 6-3 6-4 | Anna-Lena Groenefeld | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maria Kirilenko | #947 | #10 | 3,471 | 1,910 | 282 | 228 | 55.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Anna-Lena Groenefeld | #1,012 | #14 | 1,365 | 1,856 | 109 | 130 | 45.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 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.
| Maria Kirilenko | Anna-Lena Groenefeld | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2002 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #373 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #118 | 1,515 | 0 | 0 |
| 2003 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #124 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 7–15 | 31.8% | #68 | 1,478 | 0 | 0 |
| 2004 | 8–9 | 47.1% | #107 | 1,575 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 36–26 | 58.1% | #21 | 1,786 | 0 | 0 |
| 2005 | 29–21 | 58.0% | #25 | 1,741 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 30–26 | 53.6% | #19 | 1,656 | 0 | 1 |
| 2006 | 23–25 | 47.9% | #30 | 1,656 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #204 | 1,527 | 0 | 1 |
| 2007 | 28–26 | 51.9% | #25 | 1,739 | 0 | 2 | 2008 | 7–7 | 50.0% | #76 | 1,596 | 0 | 1 |
| 2008 | 34–22 | 60.7% | #29 | 1,722 | 0 | 5 | 2009 | 18–23 | 43.9% | #65 | 1,655 | 0 | 1 |
| 2009 | 21–24 | 46.7% | #62 | 1,719 | 0 | 5 | 2010 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #166 | 1,563 | 0 | 1 |
| 2010 | 37–23 | 61.7% | #20 | 1,827 | 0 | 5 | 2011 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #266 | 1,542 | 0 | 1 |
| 2011 | 29–23 | 55.8% | #28 | 1,816 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2012 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #14 | 1,775 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2013 | 34–18 | 65.4% | #19 | 1,786 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2014 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #187 | 1,698 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |