H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Petra Cetkovska vs Elena Dementieva H2H: 1-1
Petra Cetkovska and Elena Dementieva 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, Petra Cetkovska won the 2009 Indian Wells second round 7-6(2) 2-6 6-1.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
CZE
Age 41
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
RUS
Age 44
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 11, 2009* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Petra Cetkovska | 7-6(2) 2-6 6-1 | Elena Dementieva | Match data |
| Aug 30, 2007* | US Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Elena Dementieva | 6-3 6-2 | Petra Cetkovska | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Petra Cetkovska | #954 | #25 | 1,955 | 1,761 | 73 | 81 | 47.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Elena Dementieva | #10 | #3 | 8,286 | 2,108 | 472 | 243 | 66.0% | 0 | 3 | 0 | 9 | 3 | 15 |
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 | Petra Cetkovska | Elena Dementieva | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #349 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1998 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #186 | 1,478 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1999 | 11–11 | 50.0% | #62 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2000 | 33–19 | 63.5% | #11 | 1,859 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2001 | 34–22 | 60.7% | #15 | 1,833 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2002 | 36–26 | 58.1% | #19 | 1,763 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2003 | 47–25 | 65.3% | #8 | 1,966 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2007 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #104 | 1,501 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 40–22 | 64.5% | #6 | 1,986 | 0 | 4 |
| 23 | 2008 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #83 | 1,515 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 41–22 | 65.1% | #8 | 1,925 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 2009 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #149 | 1,510 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 45–21 | 68.2% | #8 | 1,908 | 0 | 6 |
| 25 | 2010 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #143 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 41–18 | 69.5% | #11 | 1,964 | 0 | 8 |
| 26 | 2011 | 15–9 | 62.5% | #31 | 1,690 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 50–17 | 74.6% | #4 | 2,014 | 0 | 10 |
| 27 | 2012 | 17–14 | 54.8% | #55 | 1,724 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 55–18 | 75.3% | #5 | 1,981 | 0 | 13 |
| 28 | 2013 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #139 | 1,651 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 39–19 | 67.2% | #9 | 1,928 | 0 | 15 |
| 29 | 2014 | 13–11 | 54.2% | #58 | 1,699 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2015 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #130 | 1,632 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2016 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #591 | 1,598 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |