H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Marion Bartoli vs Ludmila Cervanova H2H: 0-1
Ludmila Cervanova holds a 1–0 lead over Marion Bartoli in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Ludmila Cervanova leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Ludmila Cervanova won the 2004 Budapest fourth round 7-6(3) 7-5.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
FRA
Age 41
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
SVK
Age 46
Right-Handed
171 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 30, 2004* | Budapest | WTA 250 | R16 | Clay | Ludmila Cervanova | 7-6(3) 7-5 | Marion Bartoli | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marion Bartoli | #13 | #7 | 5,160 | 1,996 | 402 | 267 | 60.1% | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 8 |
| Ludmila Cervanova | #889 | #58 | 578 | 1,694 | 76 | 96 | 44.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Marion Bartoli | Ludmila Cervanova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #307 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2002 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #104 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2003 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #58 | 1,643 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #135 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2004 | 26–23 | 53.1% | #41 | 1,666 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #102 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2005 | 26–25 | 51.0% | #37 | 1,632 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #122 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2006 | 45–28 | 61.6% | #18 | 1,800 | 0 | 3 | 2001 | 11–16 | 40.7% | #92 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2007 | 47–31 | 60.3% | #10 | 1,873 | 0 | 3 | 2002 | 11–15 | 42.3% | #103 | 1,542 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2008 | 30–26 | 53.6% | #17 | 1,809 | 0 | 3 | 2003 | 20–14 | 58.8% | #64 | 1,642 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2009 | 46–22 | 67.6% | #11 | 1,882 | 0 | 5 | 2004 | 15–17 | 46.9% | #96 | 1,629 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2010 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #16 | 1,820 | 0 | 5 | 2005 | 7–15 | 31.8% | #119 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2011 | 60–26 | 69.8% | #9 | 1,907 | 0 | 7 | 2006 | 3–1 | 75.0% | #325 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2012 | 41–25 | 62.1% | #11 | 1,814 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2013 | 23–15 | 60.5% | #13 | 1,808 | 1 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |