H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Maria Kirilenko vs Tamira Paszek H2H: 1-3
Tamira Paszek holds a 3–1 lead over Maria Kirilenko in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Tamira Paszek leads 3–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Maria Kirilenko won the 2011 Beijing fourth round 6-1 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
–
3
4 main draw meetings
Age 35
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 7, 2011* | Beijing | WTA 1000 | R16 | Hard | Maria Kirilenko | 6-1 6-2 | Tamira Paszek | Match data |
| Aug 4, 2011* | San Diego | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Tamira Paszek | (w/o) | Maria Kirilenko | Match data |
| Aug 27, 2008* | US Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Tamira Paszek | 6-3 3-6 6-4 | Maria Kirilenko | Match data |
| Jan 5, 2008* | Auckland | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Tamira Paszek | 6-1 6-3 | Maria Kirilenko | 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 |
| Tamira Paszek | — | — | — | 1,801 | 99 | 128 | 43.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 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 | Maria Kirilenko | Tamira Paszek | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,512 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | 2002 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #373 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 6–2 | 75.0% | — | 1,598 | 0 | 1 |
| 16 | 2003 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #124 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 15–14 | 51.7% | — | 1,730 | 0 | 1 |
| 17 | 2004 | 8–9 | 47.1% | #107 | 1,575 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 16–18 | 47.1% | — | 1,697 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | 2005 | 29–21 | 58.0% | #25 | 1,741 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 5–9 | 35.7% | — | 1,626 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 2006 | 23–25 | 47.9% | #30 | 1,656 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 9–9 | 50.0% | — | 1,641 | 0 | 2 |
| 20 | 2007 | 28–26 | 51.9% | #25 | 1,739 | 0 | 2 | 2011 | 19–21 | 47.5% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 2008 | 34–22 | 60.7% | #29 | 1,722 | 0 | 5 | 2012 | 18–20 | 47.4% | — | 1,687 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2009 | 21–24 | 46.7% | #62 | 1,719 | 0 | 5 | 2013 | 2–17 | 10.5% | — | 1,483 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 2010 | 37–23 | 61.7% | #20 | 1,827 | 0 | 5 | 2014 | 1–4 | 20.0% | — | 1,475 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 2011 | 29–23 | 55.8% | #28 | 1,816 | 0 | 5 | 2015 | 1–4 | 20.0% | — | 1,447 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2012 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #14 | 1,775 | 0 | 5 | 2016 | 6–9 | 40.0% | — | 1,498 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 2013 | 34–18 | 65.4% | #19 | 1,786 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2014 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #187 | 1,698 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |