H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Marina Erakovic vs Francesca Schiavone H2H: 0-1
Francesca Schiavone holds a 1–0 lead over Marina Erakovic in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Francesca Schiavone leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Francesca Schiavone won the 2013 Birmingham fourth round 7-6(3) 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.
NZL
Age 38
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
ITA
Age 46
Right-Handed
166 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 14, 2013* | Birmingham | WTA 250 | R16 | Grass | Francesca Schiavone | 7-6(3) 6-3 | Marina Erakovic | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marina Erakovic | #827 | #39 | 1,392 | 1,701 | 105 | 131 | 44.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Francesca Schiavone | #486 | #4 | 5,246 | 1,984 | 439 | 367 | 54.5% | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 8 |
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 | Marina Erakovic | Francesca Schiavone | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #213 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2007 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #153 | 1,457 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #200 | 1,494 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2008 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #66 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 7–4 | 63.6% | #80 | 1,577 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2009 | 4–7 | 36.4% | #227 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #31 | 1,657 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2010 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #333 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 20–22 | 47.6% | #41 | 1,691 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2011 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #61 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 32–23 | 58.2% | #20 | 1,803 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2012 | 19–20 | 48.7% | #66 | 1,600 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 32–22 | 59.3% | #19 | 1,822 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2013 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #46 | 1,673 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #13 | 1,952 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2014 | 12–20 | 37.5% | #76 | 1,609 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 35–23 | 60.3% | #15 | 1,802 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2015 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #135 | 1,543 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 27–22 | 55.1% | #24 | 1,835 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2016 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #106 | 1,625 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 22–21 | 51.2% | #30 | 1,757 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2017 | 1–9 | 10.0% | #197 | 1,551 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 35–25 | 58.3% | #17 | 1,837 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 38–21 | 64.4% | #7 | 1,898 | 1 | 4 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 34–21 | 61.8% | #11 | 1,819 | 1 | 4 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #35 | 1,687 | 1 | 5 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 25–24 | 51.0% | #39 | 1,722 | 1 | 6 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 14–25 | 35.9% | #78 | 1,619 | 1 | 6 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 9–17 | 34.6% | #114 | 1,562 | 1 | 6 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2016 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #103 | 1,594 | 1 | 7 |
| 37 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 11–14 | 44.0% | #91 | 1,619 | 1 | 8 |
| 38 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2018 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #486 | 1,501 | 1 | 8 |