H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:30 UTC
Patricia Maria Tig vs Marina Erakovic H2H: 1-1
Patricia Maria Tig and Marina Erakovic are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Patricia Maria Tig won the 2016 Seoul third round 2-6 7-5 6-4.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
ROU
Age 31
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
NZL
Age 38
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 22, 2016* | Seoul | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Patricia Maria Tig | 2-6 7-5 6-4 | Marina Erakovic | Match data |
| Sep 19, 2016 | Seoul | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Marina Erakovic | 6-2 5-7 2-1 | Patricia Maria Tig | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patricia Maria Tig | #417 | #56 | 1,284 | 1,739 | 40 | 52 | 43.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Marina Erakovic | #827 | #39 | 1,392 | 1,701 | 105 | 131 | 44.5% | 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 | Patricia Maria Tig | Marina Erakovic | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #213 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #153 | 1,457 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2015 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #123 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #66 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2016 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #108 | 1,520 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 4–7 | 36.4% | #227 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2017 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #232 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #333 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #61 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2019 | 8–4 | 66.7% | #114 | 1,652 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 19–20 | 48.7% | #66 | 1,600 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2020 | 11–5 | 68.8% | #56 | 1,724 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #46 | 1,673 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2021 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #225 | 1,623 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 12–20 | 37.5% | #76 | 1,609 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #135 | 1,543 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2023 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #436 | 1,535 | 0 | 1 | 2016 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #106 | 1,625 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 1–9 | 10.0% | #197 | 1,551 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2025 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #400 | 1,470 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |