Petra Langrova
all rivalries →| Opponent | W | L | M | Last Played | H2H |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sandra Cecchini | 0 | 4 | 4 | Jul 24, 1997 | H2H |
| Veronika Martinek | 2 | 2 | 4 | Jul 17, 1997 | H2H |
| Judith Wiesner | 0 | 4 | 4 | Sep 1, 1996 | H2H |
| Steffi Graf | 0 | 4 | 4 | Jun 2, 1996 | H2H |
| Leila Meskhi | 0 | 4 | 4 | Feb 19, 1994 | H2H |
H2H data updated: 2026-09-13 00:00 UTC
Petra Langrova vs Maria Strandlund Tomsvik H2H: 1-0
Petra Langrova holds a 1–0 lead over Maria Strandlund Tomsvik in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Petra Langrova leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Petra Langrova won the 1995 British Clay Court Champs round of 16 6-3 4-6 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.
H2H Match Log
| Player | Score | Player | Match Data | Date | Round | Tournament | Category | Surface |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Petra Langrova | 6-3 4-6 6-3 | Maria Strandlund Tomsvik | Match data | May 19, 1995* | R16 | British Clay Court Champs | Tier IV → modern equivalent WTA 250 | Clay |
Estimated match date where the exact historical date is unavailable. Arrows show an edition's recorded category and documented modern equivalent; unresolved editions keep their recorded category. Asterisked totals include editions mapped from documented historical predecessor categories. Mapping details.
Career Comparison
| Player | Current | Peak | Pts | Elo | W | L | Win % | GS | 1000 including documented historical predecessor categories | Finals | 500 including documented historical predecessor categories | 250 including documented historical predecessor categories | Titles |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Petra Langrova | #895 | #53 | 453 | 1,700 | 81 | 117 | 40.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Maria Strandlund Tomsvik | — | — | — | 1,625 | 42 | 77 | 35.3% | 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.
| Petra Langrova | Maria Strandlund Tomsvik | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 1988 | 5–2 | 71.4% | #100 | 1,581 | 0 | 1 | 1987 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,504 | 0 | 0 |
| 1989 | 12–16 | 42.9% | #78 | 1,620 | 0 | 1 | 1988 | 6–7 | 46.2% | — | 1,578 | 0 | 0 |
| 1990 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #80 | 1,616 | 0 | 1 | 1989 | 10–14 | 41.7% | — | 1,611 | 0 | 0 |
| 1991 | 14–19 | 42.4% | #86 | 1,597 | 0 | 1 | 1990 | 7–16 | 30.4% | — | 1,588 | 0 | 0 |
| 1992 | 8–14 | 36.4% | #134 | 1,561 | 0 | 1 | 1991 | 6–12 | 33.3% | — | 1,553 | 0 | 0 |
| 1993 | 7–11 | 38.9% | #103 | 1,558 | 0 | 1 | 1992 | 0–3 | 0.0% | — | 1,520 | 0 | 0 |
| 1994 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #106 | 1,568 | 0 | 1 | 1993 | 2–3 | 40.0% | — | 1,559 | 0 | 0 |
| 1995 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #137 | 1,571 | 0 | 1 | 1994 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,546 | 0 | 0 |
| 1996 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #66 | 1,626 | 0 | 1 | 1995 | 8–13 | 38.1% | — | 1,545 | 0 | 0 |
| 1997 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #133 | 1,523 | 0 | 1 | 1996 | 2–5 | 28.6% | — | 1,526 | 0 | 0 |
| 1998 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #249 | 1,509 | 0 | 1 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,515 | 0 | 0 |
Surface Results by Career Season
Rows are aligned in career order because complete birth data is unavailable. Results cover completed main-draw matches. Bold green marks the higher win percentage when both players have at least 5 matches on that surface at the aligned age.
| Petra Langrova | Maria Strandlund Tomsvik | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | Hard | Clay | Grass | Carpet | Yr | Hard | Clay | Grass | Carpet | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| W | L | M | Win % | W | L | M | Win % | W | L | M | Win % | W | L | M | Win % | W | L | M | Win % | W | L | M | Win % | W | L | M | Win % | W | L | M | Win % | ||
| 1988 | — | — | — | — | 5 | 0 | 5 | 100.0% | — | — | — | — | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.0% | 1987 | — | — | — | — | 1 | 1 | 2 | 50.0% | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1989 | 2 | 7 | 9 | 22.2% | 10 | 8 | 18 | 55.6% | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.0% | — | — | — | — | 1988 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 50.0% | 3 | 3 | 6 | 50.0% | — | — | — | — | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.0% |
| 1990 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 42.9% | 9 | 10 | 19 | 47.4% | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.0% | — | — | — | — | 1989 | 4 | 6 | 10 | 40.0% | 3 | 6 | 9 | 33.3% | 1 | 1 | 2 | 50.0% | 2 | 1 | 3 | 66.7% |
| 1991 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 33.3% | 6 | 9 | 15 | 40.0% | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.0% | 5 | 3 | 8 | 62.5% | 1990 | 5 | 9 | 14 | 35.7% | 2 | 5 | 7 | 28.6% | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.0% | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.0% |
| 1992 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 28.6% | 3 | 5 | 8 | 37.5% | — | — | — | — | 3 | 4 | 7 | 42.9% | 1991 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 28.6% | 2 | 5 | 7 | 28.6% | 2 | 1 | 3 | 66.7% | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.0% |
| 1993 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 50.0% | 4 | 7 | 11 | 36.4% | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.0% | 2 | 2 | 4 | 50.0% | 1992 | — | — | — | — | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.0% | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.0% | — | — | — | — |
| 1994 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 25.0% | 3 | 3 | 6 | 50.0% | 1 | 1 | 2 | 50.0% | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.0% | 1993 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 50.0% | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.0% | 1 | 1 | 2 | 50.0% | — | — | — | — |
| 1995 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 40.0% | 5 | 6 | 11 | 45.5% | — | — | — | — | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.0% | 1994 | — | — | — | — | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.0% | — | — | — | — | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.0% |
| 1996 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 66.7% | 5 | 5 | 10 | 50.0% | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 57.1% | 3 | 5 | 8 | 37.5% | 1 | 3 | 4 | 25.0% | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.0% |
| 1997 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0.0% | 4 | 9 | 13 | 30.8% | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.0% | — | — | — | — | 1996 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.0% | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.0% | 1 | 1 | 2 | 50.0% | 1 | 2 | 3 | 33.3% |
| 1998 | — | — | — | — | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.0% | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1997 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.0% |
| Career | 16 | 33 | 49 | 32.7% | 54 | 63 | 117 | 46.2% | 1 | 7 | 8 | 12.5% | 10 | 14 | 24 | 41.7% | Career | 19 | 28 | 47 | 40.4% | 14 | 30 | 44 | 31.8% | 6 | 9 | 15 | 40.0% | 3 | 10 | 13 | 23.1% |
Advanced Statistics Comparison by Career Season
Rows are aligned in career order because complete birth data is unavailable. Metrics use eligible main-draw results; point statistics use matches with detailed data. Bold green marks the stronger value when both underlying samples are sufficient. Lower is better for Schedule because a negative value means a tougher schedule. Career Schedule is normalized per 100 matches.
| Petra Langrova | Maria Strandlund Tomsvik | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | Elo | P+ | Serve+ | Return+ | PD | TPW% | Hard Elo | Clay Elo | Grass Elo | Set Win % | Set Margin | Dec. Set | Tiebreak | Pressure+ | Schedule | Yr | Elo | P+ | Serve+ | Return+ | PD | TPW% | Hard Elo | Clay Elo | Grass Elo | Set Win % | Set Margin | Dec. Set | Tiebreak | Pressure+ | Schedule |
| 1988 | 1581 | 119.1 | — | — | — | — | — | +77 | — | 62.5% | +0.50 | 2–0 | 3–1 (75%) | — | +1.11 | 1987 | 1504 | 102.8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 60.0% | +1.20 | 0–1 | — | — | +0.37 |
| 1989 | 1621 | 121.4 | — | — | — | — | -125 | +103 | — | 43.9% | -0.59 | 5–5 (50%) | 6–4 (60%) | 102.8 | +0.67 | 1988 | 1578 | 125.8 | — | — | — | — | +10 | -8 | — | 45.5% | -0.15 | 4–3 (57%) | 1–2 (33%) | 102.9 | +0.45 |
| 1990 | 1616 | 124.6 | — | — | — | — | -72 | +52 | — | 47.6% | -0.25 | 3–6 (33%) | 1–4 (20%) | 94.6 | -0.15 | 1989 | 1612 | 115.4 | — | — | — | — | -1 | -33 | — | 44.3% | -0.85 | 6–7 (46%) | 1–1 | — | +0.30 |
| 1991 | 1597 | 128.3 | — | — | — | — | -3 | +40 | — | 40.3% | -0.51 | 5–3 (63%) | 1–4 (20%) | 101.3 | +0.13 | 1990 | 1589 | 112.6 | — | — | — | — | +13 | -55 | — | 32.7% | -1.00 | 5–3 (63%) | 0–5 (0%) | 99.0 | -0.92 |
| 1992 | 1562 | 116.3 | — | — | — | — | +4 | +55 | — | 40.4% | -0.72 | 6–7 (46%) | 2–4 (33%) | 98.3 | +0.27 | 1991 | 1554 | 113.6 | — | — | — | — | -13 | -34 | +68 | 35.7% | -0.98 | 3–3 (50%) | 1–2 (33%) | 99.8 | -0.11 |
| 1993 | 1559 | 114.9 | — | — | — | — | +30 | +27 | — | 45.0% | -0.57 | 2–4 (33%) | 3–1 (75%) | 99.5 | -0.13 | 1992 | 1520 | 104.3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 14.3% | -2.57 | 0–1 | — | — | -0.32 |
| 1994 | 1568 | 112.8 | — | — | — | — | -26 | +63 | — | 43.2% | -0.95 | 3–6 (33%) | 1–1 | — | +0.21 | 1993 | 1560 | 135.6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 33.3% | -1.42 | 2–0 | 0–1 | — | -0.82 |
| 1995 | 1572 | 110.3 | — | — | — | — | -25 | +25 | — | 40.5% | -0.51 | 2–1 (67%) | 0–3 (0%) | — | -0.06 | 1994 | 1546 | 102.3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 0.0% | -2.25 | — | 0–2 | — | -0.30 |
| 1996 | 1626 | 114.6 | — | — | — | — | -34 | -13 | — | 53.3% | +0.07 | 4–2 (67%) | 1–0 | — | +0.08 | 1995 | 1545 | 114.4 | — | — | — | — | +8 | -11 | +27 | 40.8% | -0.86 | 3–4 (43%) | 1–1 | — | -0.97 |
| 1997 | 1523 | 109.5 | — | — | — | — | +46 | +26 | — | 26.3% | -1.79 | 0–2 | — | — | +0.21 | 1996 | 1527 | 113.8 | — | — | — | — | +25 | — | — | 33.3% | -0.60 | 0–1 | 1–2 (33%) | — | +0.67 |
| 1998 | 1509 | 97.6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 33.3% | -3.33 | 0–1 | — | — | +0.03 | 1997 | 1515 | 100.1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 33.3% | -2.67 | 0–1 | 1–0 | — | +0.13 |
| Career | 1701 | 124.6 | — | — | — | — | -24 | +47 | — | 42.9% | -0.60 | 32–37 (46%) | 18–22 (45%) | 98.9 | +1.20 | Career | 1625 | 123.4 | — | — | — | — | +6 | -29 | +45 | 38.2% | -0.87 | 23–24 (49%) | 6–16 (27%) | 97.8 | -1.28 |
Career Rivalries
Each player's five most-played main-draw opponents. The current matchup is highlighted when it appears in a player's top five.
Maria Strandlund Tomsvik
all rivalries →| Opponent | W | L | M | Last Played | H2H |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lori Mcneil | 1 | 3 | 4 | Nov 2, 1995 | H2H |
| Silke Meier | 1 | 2 | 3 | Jun 28, 1995 | H2H |
| Monica Seles | 0 | 3 | 3 | Apr 29, 1993 | H2H |
| Emanuela Zardo | 2 | 1 | 3 | Jan 20, 1993 | H2H |
| Laurence Courtois | 1 | 1 | 2 | Jun 13, 1996 | H2H |