H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Mima Jausovec vs Helena Sukova H2H: 0-1
Helena Sukova holds a 1–0 lead over Mima Jausovec in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Helena Sukova leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Helena Sukova won the 1982 Chicago third round 7-6 4-6 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.
SLO
Age 69
Right-Handed
160 cm / 5'3"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
CZE
Age 61
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 28, 1982* | Chicago | WTA 250 | R32 | Carpet | Helena Sukova | 7-6 4-6 7-5 | Mima Jausovec | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mima Jausovec | #400 | #23 | 2 | 2,088 | 339 | 246 | 57.9% | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 7 |
| Helena Sukova | #102 | #4 | 735 | 2,217 | 580 | 297 | 66.1% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 9 |
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 | Mima Jausovec | Helena Sukova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1972 | 2–0 | 100.0% | — | 1,533 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1973 | 2–1 | 66.7% | — | 1,560 | 0 | 1 | 1981 | 6–4 | 60.0% | — | 1,583 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1974 | 18–13 | 58.1% | — | 1,790 | 0 | 1 | 1982 | 23–23 | 50.0% | — | 1,757 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1975 | 16–19 | 45.7% | — | 1,804 | 0 | 1 | 1983 | 33–20 | 62.3% | — | 1,907 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1976 | 33–16 | 67.3% | — | 1,996 | 0 | 4 | 1984 | 48–23 | 67.6% | #7 | 2,041 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 1977 | 32–21 | 60.4% | — | 2,008 | 1 | 5 | 1985 | 54–21 | 72.0% | #9 | 2,028 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 1978 | 29–19 | 60.4% | — | 1,922 | 1 | 6 | 1986 | 69–21 | 76.7% | #6 | 2,151 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 1979 | 32–28 | 53.3% | — | 1,866 | 1 | 6 | 1987 | 58–19 | 75.3% | #7 | 2,129 | 0 | 5 |
| 23 | 1980 | 34–22 | 60.7% | — | 1,941 | 1 | 6 | 1988 | 49–19 | 72.1% | #8 | 2,120 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 1981 | 57–28 | 67.1% | — | 2,010 | 1 | 6 | 1989 | 39–15 | 72.2% | #8 | 2,043 | 0 | 6 |
| 25 | 1982 | 36–24 | 60.0% | — | 1,861 | 1 | 7 | 1990 | 41–17 | 70.7% | #14 | 2,025 | 0 | 6 |
| 26 | 1983 | 23–16 | 59.0% | — | 1,873 | 1 | 7 | 1991 | 34–18 | 65.4% | #17 | 1,958 | 0 | 7 |
| 27 | 1984 | 12–17 | 41.4% | #87 | 1,747 | 1 | 7 | 1992 | 38–15 | 71.7% | #12 | 1,976 | 0 | 9 |
| 28 | 1985 | 9–12 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,695 | 1 | 7 | 1993 | 24–15 | 61.5% | #17 | 1,925 | 0 | 9 |
| 29 | 1986 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #184 | 1,673 | 1 | 7 | 1994 | 21–14 | 60.0% | #22 | 1,889 | 0 | 9 |
| 30 | 1987 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #233 | 1,656 | 1 | 7 | 1995 | 18–15 | 54.5% | #29 | 1,819 | 0 | 9 |
| 31 | 1988 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #362 | 1,641 | 1 | 7 | 1996 | 17–15 | 53.1% | #35 | 1,792 | 0 | 9 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1997 | 8–21 | 27.6% | #80 | 1,661 | 0 | 9 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1998 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #102 | 1,637 | 0 | 9 |