H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Marina Erakovic vs Jill Craybas H2H: 1-0
Marina Erakovic holds a 1–0 lead over Jill Craybas in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Marina Erakovic leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Marina Erakovic won the 2010 Birmingham third round 3-6 6-4 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.
NZL
Age 38
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 52
Right-Handed
160 cm / 5'3"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 10, 2010* | Birmingham | WTA 250 | R32 | Grass | Marina Erakovic | 3-6 6-4 6-4 | Jill Craybas | 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 |
| Jill Craybas | #336 | #39 | 974 | 1,695 | 161 | 256 | 38.6% | 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 | Marina Erakovic | Jill Craybas | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 2008 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #66 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2009 | 4–7 | 36.4% | #227 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2010 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #333 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 23 | 2011 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #61 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #154 | 1,473 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2012 | 19–20 | 48.7% | #66 | 1,600 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #175 | 1,445 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2013 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #46 | 1,673 | 0 | 1 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #145 | 1,449 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2014 | 12–20 | 37.5% | #76 | 1,609 | 0 | 1 | 2001 | 8–17 | 32.0% | #98 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2015 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #135 | 1,543 | 0 | 1 | 2002 | 19–15 | 55.9% | #57 | 1,652 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2016 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #106 | 1,625 | 0 | 1 | 2003 | 16–22 | 42.1% | #99 | 1,568 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2017 | 1–9 | 10.0% | #197 | 1,551 | 0 | 1 | 2004 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #59 | 1,499 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #48 | 1,614 | 0 | 1 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 18–25 | 41.9% | #70 | 1,569 | 0 | 1 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 12–27 | 30.8% | #79 | 1,472 | 0 | 1 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 22–25 | 46.8% | #64 | 1,575 | 0 | 1 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #76 | 1,592 | 0 | 1 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #98 | 1,546 | 0 | 1 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 6–20 | 23.1% | #150 | 1,442 | 0 | 1 |
| 37 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #189 | 1,449 | 0 | 1 |
| 38 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #336 | 1,451 | 0 | 1 |