H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Petra Martic vs Nadia Petrova H2H: 0-1
Nadia Petrova holds a 1–0 lead over Petra Martic in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Nadia Petrova leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Nadia Petrova won the 2012 Tokyo fourth round 7-6(2) 6-7(1) 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.
CRO
Age 35
Right-Handed
181 cm / 5'11"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
RUS
Age 44
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 28, 2012* | Tokyo | WTA 1000 | R16 | Hard | Nadia Petrova | 7-6(2) 6-7(1) 6-4 | Petra Martic | 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 Martic | #349 | #14 | 2,850 | 1,942 | 212 | 214 | 49.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Nadia Petrova | #578 | #3 | 3,882 | 2,077 | 441 | 276 | 61.5% | 0 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 13 |
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 | Nadia Petrova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1998 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #145 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2008 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #215 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #93 | 1,568 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2009 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #82 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #60 | 1,624 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2010 | 5–14 | 26.3% | #142 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #39 | 1,682 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2011 | 16–14 | 53.3% | #50 | 1,613 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 7–5 | 58.3% | #112 | 1,758 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2012 | 18–18 | 50.0% | #59 | 1,690 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #12 | 1,924 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2013 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #107 | 1,606 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 39–24 | 61.9% | #12 | 1,880 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2014 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #186 | 1,515 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 56–25 | 69.1% | #9 | 1,945 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2015 | 0–8 | 0.0% | #148 | 1,435 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 48–19 | 71.6% | #6 | 1,990 | 0 | 6 |
| 25 | 2016 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #262 | 1,525 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 37–18 | 67.3% | #14 | 1,931 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 2017 | 6–4 | 60.0% | #89 | 1,612 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 47–24 | 66.2% | #11 | 1,923 | 0 | 9 |
| 27 | 2018 | 26–17 | 60.5% | #32 | 1,795 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 30–21 | 58.8% | #20 | 1,821 | 0 | 9 |
| 28 | 2019 | 36–17 | 67.9% | #15 | 1,903 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 32–20 | 61.5% | #15 | 1,828 | 0 | 9 |
| 29 | 2020 | 14–11 | 56.0% | #18 | 1,805 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 25–21 | 54.3% | #29 | 1,781 | 0 | 10 |
| 30 | 2021 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #54 | 1,658 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 37–18 | 67.3% | #12 | 1,917 | 0 | 13 |
| 31 | 2022 | 25–17 | 59.5% | #38 | 1,794 | 0 | 2 | 2013 | 9–13 | 40.9% | #104 | 1,718 | 0 | 13 |
| 32 | 2023 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #40 | 1,808 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #362 | 1,648 | 0 | 13 |
| 33 | 2024 | 9–18 | 33.3% | #122 | 1,649 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2025 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #209 | 1,611 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |