H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Melinda Czink vs Sybille Bammer H2H: 1-1
Melinda Czink and Sybille Bammer are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Melinda Czink leads 1–0 on clay, while Sybille Bammer leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Melinda Czink won the 2009 Roland Garros second round 4-6 6-3 10-8.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
HUN
Age 43
Left-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
AUT
Age 46
Left-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 28, 2009* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R64 | Clay | Melinda Czink | 4-6 6-3 10-8 | Sybille Bammer | Match data |
| Feb 11, 2006* | Pattaya | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Sybille Bammer | 6-4 6-3 | Melinda Czink | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Melinda Czink | #691 | #37 | 1,571 | 1,794 | 89 | 136 | 39.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Sybille Bammer | #161 | #19 | 2,014 | 1,844 | 130 | 139 | 48.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
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 | Melinda Czink | Sybille Bammer | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 20 | 2003 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #79 | 1,568 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #294 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2004 | 2–15 | 11.8% | #128 | 1,427 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2005 | 9–12 | 42.9% | #96 | 1,478 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 23 | 2006 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #105 | 1,500 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #148 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2007 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #124 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #175 | 1,441 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2008 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #106 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2009 | 29–21 | 58.0% | #37 | 1,741 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 19–26 | 42.2% | #49 | 1,569 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2010 | 3–16 | 15.8% | #312 | 1,524 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 43–24 | 64.2% | #19 | 1,780 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2011 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #143 | 1,519 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 24–24 | 50.0% | #26 | 1,682 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2012 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #94 | 1,543 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #54 | 1,662 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 2013 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #254 | 1,499 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #68 | 1,646 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #161 | 1,569 | 0 | 2 |