H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:30 UTC
Petra Martic vs Marina Erakovic H2H: 1-0
Petra Martic holds a 1–0 lead over Marina Erakovic in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Petra Martic leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Petra Martic won the 2016 Rio de Janeiro fourth round 7-6(2) 5-7 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.
CRO
Age 35
Right-Handed
181 cm / 5'11"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
NZL
Age 38
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 18, 2016 | Rio de Janeiro | WTA 250 | R16 | Clay | Petra Martic | 7-6(2) 5-7 6-2 | Marina Erakovic | Match data |
Career Comparison
| Player | Current | Peak | Pts | Elo | W | L | Win % | GS | 1000 | Finals | 500 | 250 | Titles |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Petra Martic | #349 | #14 | 2,850 | 1,942 | 212 | 214 | 49.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| 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 | Petra Martic | Marina Erakovic | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #330 | 1,480 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2008 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #215 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #213 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2009 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #82 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2010 | 5–14 | 26.3% | #142 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #153 | 1,457 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2011 | 16–14 | 53.3% | #50 | 1,613 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #66 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2012 | 18–18 | 50.0% | #59 | 1,690 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 4–7 | 36.4% | #227 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2013 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #107 | 1,606 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #333 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2014 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #186 | 1,515 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #61 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2015 | 0–8 | 0.0% | #148 | 1,435 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 19–20 | 48.7% | #66 | 1,600 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2016 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #262 | 1,525 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #46 | 1,673 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2017 | 6–4 | 60.0% | #89 | 1,612 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 12–20 | 37.5% | #76 | 1,609 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2018 | 26–17 | 60.5% | #32 | 1,795 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #135 | 1,543 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2019 | 36–17 | 67.9% | #15 | 1,903 | 0 | 1 | 2016 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #106 | 1,625 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2020 | 14–11 | 56.0% | #18 | 1,805 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | 1–9 | 10.0% | #197 | 1,551 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2021 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #54 | 1,658 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2022 | 25–17 | 59.5% | #38 | 1,794 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2023 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #40 | 1,808 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2024 | 9–18 | 33.3% | #122 | 1,649 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2025 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #209 | 1,611 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |