H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Nicole Pratt vs Tamira Paszek H2H: 0-1
Tamira Paszek holds a 1–0 lead over Nicole Pratt in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Tamira Paszek leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Tamira Paszek won the 2007 Rome second round 6-7(1) 6-0 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.
AUS
Age 53
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
Age 35
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 16, 2007* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Tamira Paszek | 6-7(1) 6-0 6-2 | Nicole Pratt | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nicole Pratt | #1,043 | #35 | 924 | 1,764 | 156 | 217 | 41.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Tamira Paszek | — | — | — | 1,801 | 99 | 128 | 43.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 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 | Nicole Pratt | Tamira Paszek | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,512 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 6–2 | 75.0% | — | 1,598 | 0 | 1 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 15–14 | 51.7% | — | 1,730 | 0 | 1 |
| 17 | 1990 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #201 | 1,497 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 16–18 | 47.1% | — | 1,697 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | 1991 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #201 | 1,469 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 5–9 | 35.7% | — | 1,626 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 1992 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #203 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 9–9 | 50.0% | — | 1,641 | 0 | 2 |
| 20 | 1993 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #172 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 19–21 | 47.5% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 1994 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #224 | 1,465 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 18–20 | 47.4% | — | 1,687 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 1995 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #214 | 1,451 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 2–17 | 10.5% | — | 1,483 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 1996 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #194 | 1,434 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 1–4 | 20.0% | — | 1,475 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 1997 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #110 | 1,494 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 1–4 | 20.0% | — | 1,447 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 1998 | 4–13 | 23.5% | #113 | 1,464 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 6–9 | 40.0% | — | 1,498 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 1999 | 15–17 | 46.9% | #56 | 1,598 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2000 | 16–23 | 41.0% | #54 | 1,621 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2001 | 22–23 | 48.9% | #51 | 1,704 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2002 | 23–20 | 53.5% | #48 | 1,719 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2003 | 17–23 | 42.5% | #53 | 1,646 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2004 | 19–21 | 47.5% | #50 | 1,604 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2005 | 8–17 | 32.0% | #126 | 1,544 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2006 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #77 | 1,546 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2007 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #70 | 1,566 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2008 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #1043 | 1,545 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |