H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Petra Cetkovska vs Lilia Osterloh H2H: 0-1
Lilia Osterloh holds a 1–0 lead over Petra Cetkovska in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Lilia Osterloh leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Lilia Osterloh won the 2008 Cincinnati fourth round 6-4 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
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 48
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 15, 2008* | Cincinnati | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Lilia Osterloh | 6-4 6-1 | 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 |
| Lilia Osterloh | #1,223 | #41 | 738 | 1,697 | 83 | 138 | 37.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Lilia Osterloh | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1996 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #195 | 1,518 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1997 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #170 | 1,551 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1998 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #120 | 1,501 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1999 | 9–13 | 40.9% | #79 | 1,545 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2007 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #104 | 1,501 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #43 | 1,595 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2008 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #83 | 1,515 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 23–25 | 47.9% | #53 | 1,659 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2009 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #149 | 1,510 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #156 | 1,535 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2010 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #143 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #180 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2011 | 15–9 | 62.5% | #31 | 1,690 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #119 | 1,561 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2012 | 17–14 | 54.8% | #55 | 1,724 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #144 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2013 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #139 | 1,651 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #118 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2014 | 13–11 | 54.2% | #58 | 1,699 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #91 | 1,543 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2015 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #130 | 1,632 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #230 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2016 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #591 | 1,598 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #136 | 1,510 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #237 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 |