H2H data updated: 2026-07-20 04:32 UTC
Rebecca Marino vs Elena Vesnina H2H: 0-1
Elena Vesnina holds a 1–0 lead over Rebecca Marino in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Elena Vesnina leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Elena Vesnina won the 2011 Charleston second round 6-7(4) 6-2 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.
CAN
Age 35
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
RUS
Age 39
Right-Handed
176 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 6, 2011* | Charleston | WTA 500 | R64 | Clay | Elena Vesnina | 6-7(4) 6-2 6-3 | 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 |
| Elena Vesnina | #573 | #13 | 3,320 | 1,858 | 262 | 260 | 50.2% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 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 | Elena Vesnina | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2004 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #259 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2009 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #178 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #106 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2010 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #104 | 1,550 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 20–24 | 45.5% | #47 | 1,617 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2011 | 14–19 | 42.4% | #64 | 1,561 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 17–21 | 44.7% | #54 | 1,631 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2012 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #420 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 12–19 | 38.7% | #79 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2013 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #418 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 31–20 | 60.8% | #23 | 1,767 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 22–22 | 50.0% | #52 | 1,720 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 19–21 | 47.5% | #57 | 1,689 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #68 | 1,701 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #25 | 1,801 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2018 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #215 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 16–17 | 48.5% | #64 | 1,689 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 11–17 | 39.3% | #115 | 1,609 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2016 | 28–16 | 63.6% | #16 | 1,778 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 2021 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #145 | 1,561 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 25–26 | 49.0% | #18 | 1,691 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 2022 | 12–14 | 46.2% | #63 | 1,688 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #137 | 1,679 | 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 | 2021 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #310 | 1,689 | 0 | 3 |