H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Marina Erakovic vs Tamira Paszek H2H: 1-2
Tamira Paszek holds a 2–1 lead over Marina Erakovic in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while Tamira Paszek leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Tamira Paszek won the 2012 Eastbourne third round 7-5 6-1.
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
–
2
3 main draw meetings
Age 35
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 21, 2012* | Eastbourne | WTA 500 | R32 | Grass | Tamira Paszek | 7-5 6-1 | Marina Erakovic | Match data |
| Sep 17, 2011* | Quebec City | WTA 250 | SF | Hard | Marina Erakovic | 2-6 7-5 6-4 | Tamira Paszek | Match data |
| Sep 16, 2010* | Quebec City | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Tamira Paszek | 6-0 6-4 | 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 |
| 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 | Marina Erakovic | 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 6–2 | 75.0% | — | 1,598 | 0 | 1 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 15–14 | 51.7% | — | 1,730 | 0 | 1 |
| 17 | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #213 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 16–18 | 47.1% | — | 1,697 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 5–9 | 35.7% | — | 1,626 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 2007 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #153 | 1,457 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 9–9 | 50.0% | — | 1,641 | 0 | 2 |
| 20 | 2008 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #66 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 19–21 | 47.5% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 2009 | 4–7 | 36.4% | #227 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 18–20 | 47.4% | — | 1,687 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2010 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #333 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 2–17 | 10.5% | — | 1,483 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 2011 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #61 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 1–4 | 20.0% | — | 1,475 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 2012 | 19–20 | 48.7% | #66 | 1,600 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 1–4 | 20.0% | — | 1,447 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2013 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #46 | 1,673 | 0 | 1 | 2016 | 6–9 | 40.0% | — | 1,498 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 2014 | 12–20 | 37.5% | #76 | 1,609 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2015 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #135 | 1,543 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2016 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #106 | 1,625 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2017 | 1–9 | 10.0% | #197 | 1,551 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |