H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Monica Niculescu vs Marina Erakovic H2H: 2-0
Monica Niculescu holds a 2–0 lead over Marina Erakovic in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Monica Niculescu leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Monica Niculescu won the 2014 Indian Wells first round 6-2 6-2.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
ROU
Age 38
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
NZL
Age 38
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 4, 2014* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R128 | Hard | Monica Niculescu | 6-2 6-2 | Marina Erakovic | Match data |
| May 23, 2013* | Strasbourg | WTA 500 | R32 | Clay | Monica Niculescu | 6-7(7) 6-3 7-6(5) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Monica Niculescu | #958 | #28 | 1,960 | 1,807 | 176 | 213 | 45.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Marina Erakovic | #827 | #39 | 1,392 | 1,701 | 105 | 131 | 44.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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 | Monica Niculescu | Marina Erakovic | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #213 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #152 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #153 | 1,457 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2008 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #48 | 1,542 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #66 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2009 | 10–22 | 31.2% | #103 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 4–7 | 36.4% | #227 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2010 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #82 | 1,573 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #333 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2011 | 21–15 | 58.3% | #30 | 1,755 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #61 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2012 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #58 | 1,639 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 19–20 | 48.7% | #66 | 1,600 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2013 | 22–21 | 51.2% | #59 | 1,637 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #46 | 1,673 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2014 | 22–19 | 53.7% | #46 | 1,687 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 12–20 | 37.5% | #76 | 1,609 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2015 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #39 | 1,677 | 0 | 2 | 2015 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #135 | 1,543 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2016 | 25–17 | 59.5% | #38 | 1,782 | 0 | 3 | 2016 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #106 | 1,625 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2017 | 10–19 | 34.5% | #77 | 1,618 | 0 | 3 | 2017 | 1–9 | 10.0% | #197 | 1,551 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2018 | 9–15 | 37.5% | #99 | 1,588 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2019 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #118 | 1,627 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2020 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #144 | 1,579 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2021 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #274 | 1,514 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |