H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 22:32 UTC
Nao Hibino vs Mirjana Lucic-Baroni H2H: 0-1
Mirjana Lucic-Baroni holds a 1–0 lead over Nao Hibino in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Mirjana Lucic-Baroni leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Mirjana Lucic-Baroni won the 2016 Montreal second round 6-2 6-0.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
JPN
Age 31
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
CRO
Age 44
Right-Handed
181 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 27, 2016* | Montreal | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | 6-2 6-0 | Nao Hibino | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nao Hibino | #235 | #56 | 1,050 | 1,726 | 79 | 118 | 40.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | #424 | #20 | 1,924 | 1,798 | 136 | 166 | 45.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
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 | Nao Hibino | Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2000 | 2–12 | 14.3% | #202 | 1,601 | 0 | 2 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2001 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #192 | 1,596 | 0 | 2 |
| 20 | 2015 | 6–2 | 75.0% | #66 | 1,576 | 0 | 1 | 2002 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #203 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 2016 | 18–21 | 46.2% | #94 | 1,632 | 0 | 1 | 2003 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #348 | 1,526 | 0 | 2 |
| 22 | 2017 | 11–16 | 40.7% | #97 | 1,561 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 23 | 2018 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #114 | 1,590 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 2019 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #106 | 1,614 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 25 | 2020 | 9–6 | 60.0% | #73 | 1,644 | 0 | 2 | 2007 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #455 | 1,538 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2021 | 5–16 | 23.8% | #129 | 1,538 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2022 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #138 | 1,581 | 0 | 2 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #258 | 1,519 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2023 | 9–12 | 42.9% | #94 | 1,658 | 0 | 3 | 2010 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #96 | 1,554 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2024 | 4–16 | 20.0% | #145 | 1,603 | 0 | 3 | 2011 | 8–14 | 36.4% | #129 | 1,551 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 2025 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #174 | 1,514 | 0 | 3 | 2012 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #105 | 1,535 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | 2026 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #235 | 1,533 | 0 | 3 | 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 |