H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Nadia Petrova vs Sania Mirza H2H: 2-1
Nadia Petrova holds a 2–1 lead over Sania Mirza in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while Nadia Petrova leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Nadia Petrova won the 2009 Australian Open second round 6-3 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.
RUS
Age 44
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
IND
Age 39
Right-Handed
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 22, 2009* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Nadia Petrova | 6-3 6-2 | Sania Mirza | Match data |
| Jun 28, 2007* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R64 | Grass | Nadia Petrova | 6-2 6-2 | Sania Mirza | Match data |
| Aug 4, 2005* | San Diego | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Sania Mirza | 6-2 6-1 | Nadia Petrova | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nadia Petrova | #578 | #3 | 3,882 | 2,077 | 441 | 276 | 61.5% | 0 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 13 |
| Sania Mirza | #707 | #27 | 1,148 | 1,819 | 121 | 117 | 50.8% | 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 | Nadia Petrova | Sania Mirza | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 1998 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #145 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #462 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1999 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #93 | 1,568 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #169 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2000 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #60 | 1,624 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 27–16 | 62.8% | #34 | 1,677 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 2001 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #39 | 1,682 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 20–24 | 45.5% | #65 | 1,651 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 2002 | 7–5 | 58.3% | #112 | 1,758 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 30–20 | 60.0% | #31 | 1,750 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2003 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #12 | 1,924 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 11–11 | 50.0% | #101 | 1,661 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2004 | 39–24 | 61.9% | #12 | 1,880 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 17–13 | 56.7% | #57 | 1,724 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2005 | 56–25 | 69.1% | #9 | 1,945 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #141 | 1,607 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2006 | 48–19 | 71.6% | #6 | 1,990 | 0 | 6 | 2011 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #104 | 1,557 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2007 | 37–18 | 67.3% | #14 | 1,931 | 0 | 7 | 2012 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #278 | 1,541 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2008 | 47–24 | 66.2% | #11 | 1,923 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2009 | 30–21 | 58.8% | #20 | 1,821 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2010 | 32–20 | 61.5% | #15 | 1,828 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2011 | 25–21 | 54.3% | #29 | 1,781 | 0 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2012 | 37–18 | 67.3% | #12 | 1,917 | 0 | 13 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2013 | 9–13 | 40.9% | #104 | 1,718 | 0 | 13 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2014 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #362 | 1,648 | 0 | 13 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |