H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:32 UTC
Rebecca Marino vs Ekaterina Makarova H2H: 0-2
Ekaterina Makarova holds a 2–0 lead over Rebecca Marino in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Ekaterina Makarova leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Ekaterina Makarova won the 2011 Toronto second round 7-6(6) 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.
CAN
Age 35
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H
0
–
2
2 main draw meetings
RUS
Age 38
Left-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 8, 2011 | Toronto | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Ekaterina Makarova | 7-6(6) 6-4 | Rebecca Marino | Match data |
| Mar 8, 2011* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R128 | Hard | Ekaterina Makarova | 6-4 4-6 6-4 | Rebecca Marino | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rebecca Marino | #361 | #38 | 1,322 | 1,726 | 48 | 77 | 38.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ekaterina Makarova | #1,000 | #8 | 3,620 | 1,940 | 248 | 222 | 52.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
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 | Rebecca Marino | Ekaterina Makarova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 2008 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #356 | 1,502 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2009 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #178 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2010 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #104 | 1,550 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #110 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2011 | 14–19 | 42.4% | #64 | 1,561 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #46 | 1,626 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2012 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #420 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #60 | 1,634 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2013 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #418 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 14–20 | 41.2% | #49 | 1,662 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #53 | 1,604 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 26–19 | 57.8% | #20 | 1,757 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 24–18 | 57.1% | #24 | 1,838 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #11 | 1,837 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2018 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #215 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 26–16 | 61.9% | #23 | 1,784 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2016 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #30 | 1,782 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #33 | 1,836 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2021 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #145 | 1,561 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #57 | 1,750 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 2022 | 12–14 | 46.2% | #63 | 1,688 | 0 | 0 | 2019 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #997 | 1,700 | 0 | 3 |
| 32 | 2023 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #176 | 1,587 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2024 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #102 | 1,683 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2025 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #178 | 1,627 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |