H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Mirjana Lucic-Baroni vs Tatiana Panova H2H: 0-1
Tatiana Panova holds a 1–0 lead over Mirjana Lucic-Baroni in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Tatiana Panova leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Tatiana Panova won the 2002 Roland Garros second round 6-1 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.
CRO
Age 44
Right-Handed
181 cm / 5'11"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
RUS
Age 49
Right-Handed
154 cm / 5'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 30, 2002* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R64 | Clay | Tatiana Panova | 6-1 6-1 | Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | #424 | #20 | 1,924 | 1,798 | 136 | 166 | 45.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Tatiana Panova | #1,113 | #20 | 1,270 | 1,782 | 130 | 196 | 39.9% | 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 | Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | Tatiana Panova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1997 | 11–3 | 78.6% | #49 | 1,692 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1998 | 15–11 | 57.7% | #51 | 1,776 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1999 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #48 | 1,757 | 0 | 2 | 1994 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #142 | 1,508 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2000 | 2–12 | 14.3% | #202 | 1,601 | 0 | 2 | 1995 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #179 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2001 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #192 | 1,596 | 0 | 2 | 1996 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #159 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2002 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #203 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 | 1997 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #97 | 1,475 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2003 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #348 | 1,526 | 0 | 2 | 1998 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #78 | 1,472 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1999 | 14–23 | 37.8% | #40 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2000 | 23–28 | 45.1% | #34 | 1,698 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2001 | 22–30 | 42.3% | #40 | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2007 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #455 | 1,538 | 0 | 2 | 2002 | 34–31 | 52.3% | #23 | 1,752 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2003 | 7–13 | 35.0% | #114 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #258 | 1,519 | 0 | 2 | 2004 | 8–14 | 36.4% | #77 | 1,595 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2010 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #96 | 1,554 | 0 | 2 | 2005 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #91 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2011 | 8–14 | 36.4% | #129 | 1,551 | 0 | 2 | 2006 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #376 | 1,470 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2012 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #105 | 1,535 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2013 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #110 | 1,563 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2014 | 12–8 | 60.0% | #60 | 1,706 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2015 | 17–26 | 39.5% | #68 | 1,657 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2016 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #80 | 1,629 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2017 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #32 | 1,698 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2018 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #327 | 1,689 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |