H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 22:32 UTC
Naomi Osaka vs Julia Goerges H2H: 1-1
Naomi Osaka and Julia Goerges are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Julia Goerges leads 1–0 on clay, while Naomi Osaka leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Naomi Osaka won the 2018 Beijing fourth round 6-1 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.
JPN
Age 28
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
GER
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 4, 2018 | Beijing | WTA 1000 | R16 | Hard | Naomi Osaka | 6-1 6-2 | Julia Goerges | Match data |
| Apr 6, 2018* | Charleston | WTA 500 | R16 | Clay | Julia Goerges | 7-6(4) 6-3 | Naomi Osaka | Match data |
| Aug 13, 2016 | Cincinnati | WTA 1000 | Q1 | Hard | Naomi Osaka | 6-4 6-4 | Julia Goerges | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Naomi Osaka | #13 | #1 | 7,985 | 2,140 | 240 | 130 | 64.9% | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 8 |
| Julia Goerges | #45 | #9 | 3,980 | 1,940 | 304 | 249 | 55.0% | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 7 |
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.
| Naomi Osaka | Julia Goerges | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2014 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #260 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #126 | 1,543 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #144 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #108 | 1,557 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 20–13 | 60.6% | #48 | 1,700 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #77 | 1,588 | 0 | 0 |
| 2017 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #68 | 1,697 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 29–22 | 56.9% | #40 | 1,760 | 0 | 1 |
| 2018 | 39–19 | 67.2% | #5 | 1,904 | 1 | 2 | 2011 | 36–24 | 60.0% | #21 | 1,772 | 0 | 2 |
| 2019 | 40–13 | 75.5% | #3 | 2,030 | 2 | 5 | 2012 | 34–25 | 57.6% | #18 | 1,751 | 0 | 2 |
| 2020 | 16–3 | 84.2% | #3 | 2,082 | 3 | 6 | 2013 | 14–27 | 34.1% | #72 | 1,535 | 0 | 2 |
| 2021 | 18–7 | 72.0% | #13 | 2,002 | 4 | 7 | 2014 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #74 | 1,596 | 0 | 2 |
| 2022 | 15–11 | 57.7% | #42 | 1,894 | 4 | 7 | 2015 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #50 | 1,612 | 0 | 2 |
| 2024 | 21–16 | 56.8% | #57 | 1,883 | 4 | 7 | 2016 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #53 | 1,671 | 0 | 2 |
| 2025 | 31–14 | 68.9% | #16 | 1,968 | 4 | 8 | 2017 | 42–22 | 65.6% | #14 | 1,880 | 0 | 4 |
| 2026 | 19–8 | 70.4% | #13 | 2,044 | 4 | 8 | 2018 | 44–22 | 66.7% | #14 | 1,861 | 0 | 6 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2019 | 26–20 | 56.5% | #28 | 1,799 | 0 | 7 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2020 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #45 | 1,761 | 0 | 7 |