H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 04:32 UTC
Naomi Osaka vs Mirjana Lucic-Baroni H2H: 1-0
Naomi Osaka holds a 1–0 lead over Mirjana Lucic-Baroni in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Naomi Osaka leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Naomi Osaka won the 2016 Roland Garros second round 6-3 6-3.
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
–
0
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 26, 2016* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R64 | Clay | Naomi Osaka | 6-3 6-3 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Naomi Osaka | #13 | #1 | 7,985 | 2,140 | 240 | 130 | 64.9% | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 8 |
| 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 | Naomi Osaka | 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 | 2014 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #260 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 15–11 | 57.7% | #51 | 1,776 | 0 | 2 |
| 17 | 2015 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #144 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #48 | 1,757 | 0 | 2 |
| 18 | 2016 | 20–13 | 60.6% | #48 | 1,700 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 2–12 | 14.3% | #202 | 1,601 | 0 | 2 |
| 19 | 2017 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #68 | 1,697 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #192 | 1,596 | 0 | 2 |
| 20 | 2018 | 39–19 | 67.2% | #5 | 1,904 | 1 | 2 | 2002 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #203 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 2019 | 40–13 | 75.5% | #3 | 2,030 | 2 | 5 | 2003 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #348 | 1,526 | 0 | 2 |
| 22 | 2020 | 16–3 | 84.2% | #3 | 2,082 | 3 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 23 | 2021 | 18–7 | 72.0% | #13 | 2,002 | 4 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 2022 | 15–11 | 57.7% | #42 | 1,894 | 4 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 25 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #455 | 1,538 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2024 | 21–16 | 56.8% | #57 | 1,883 | 4 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2025 | 31–14 | 68.9% | #16 | 1,968 | 4 | 8 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #258 | 1,519 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2026 | 19–8 | 70.4% | #13 | 2,044 | 4 | 8 | 2010 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #96 | 1,554 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 8–14 | 36.4% | #129 | 1,551 | 0 | 2 |
| 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 |