H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Samantha Stosur vs Lucie Safarova H2H: 5-10
Lucie Safarova holds a 10–5 lead over Samantha Stosur in their WTA head-to-head. Across 15 main-draw meetings, Lucie Safarova leads 6–3 on hard courts and 3–2 on clay. Most recently, Samantha Stosur won the 2016 Roland Garros third round 6-3 6-7(0) 7-5.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
AUS
Age 42
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H
5
–
10
15 main draw meetings
CZE
Age 39
Left-Handed
177 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 28, 2016* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R32 | Clay | Samantha Stosur | 6-3 6-7(0) 7-5 | Lucie Safarova | Match data |
| May 3, 2016* | Madrid | WTA 1000 | R32 | Clay | Samantha Stosur | (w/o) | Lucie Safarova | Match data |
| Apr 30, 2016* | Prague | WTA 250 | F | Clay | Lucie Safarova | 3-6 6-1 6-4 | Samantha Stosur | Match data |
| Feb 26, 2015* | Doha | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Lucie Safarova | 7-6(3) 6-4 | Samantha Stosur | Match data |
| Jan 15, 2015* | Sydney | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Samantha Stosur | 7-6(3) 5-7 6-3 | Lucie Safarova | Match data |
| Apr 4, 2014* | Charleston | WTA 500 | R16 | Clay | Lucie Safarova | 3-6 6-4 6-4 | Samantha Stosur | Match data |
| Oct 2, 2013* | Beijing | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Lucie Safarova | 7-5 6-3 | Samantha Stosur | Match data |
| Sep 27, 2013* | Tokyo | WTA 1000 | R16 | Hard | Lucie Safarova | 6-4 6-4 | Samantha Stosur | Match data |
| Jun 21, 2013* | Eastbourne | WTA 500 | R16 | Grass | Lucie Safarova | 7-6(5) 6-3 | Samantha Stosur | Match data |
| Aug 10, 2012* | Montreal | WTA 1000 | R16 | Hard | Lucie Safarova | 7-6(9) 7-6(5) | Samantha Stosur | Match data |
| Feb 24, 2012* | Dubai | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Samantha Stosur | 6-1 6-7(5) 6-1 | Lucie Safarova | Match data |
| Mar 24, 2011* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Samantha Stosur | 6-0 7-6(1) | Lucie Safarova | Match data |
| Jan 9, 2009* | Brisbane | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Lucie Safarova | 6-4 6-4 | Samantha Stosur | Match data |
| Aug 30, 2006* | US Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Lucie Safarova | 6-2 7-6(5) | Samantha Stosur | Match data |
| Apr 12, 2006* | Charleston | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Lucie Safarova | 5-7 6-1 6-4 | Samantha Stosur | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Samantha Stosur | #531 | #4 | 6,195 | 2,068 | 451 | 335 | 57.4% | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 9 |
| Lucie Safarova | #1,269 | #5 | 4,055 | 1,929 | 351 | 270 | 56.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 7 |
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 | Samantha Stosur | Lucie Safarova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 2002 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #245 | 1,475 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 15–9 | 62.5% | #47 | 1,665 | 0 | 2 |
| 19 | 2003 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #163 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 21–21 | 50.0% | #42 | 1,625 | 0 | 3 |
| 20 | 2004 | 17–16 | 51.5% | #65 | 1,609 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 28–16 | 63.6% | #23 | 1,778 | 0 | 3 |
| 21 | 2005 | 18–22 | 45.0% | #46 | 1,607 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #63 | 1,640 | 0 | 4 |
| 22 | 2006 | 29–24 | 54.7% | #29 | 1,749 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 32–23 | 58.2% | #41 | 1,768 | 0 | 4 |
| 23 | 2007 | 15–15 | 50.0% | #46 | 1,723 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 27–23 | 54.0% | #33 | 1,722 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 2008 | 17–11 | 60.7% | #52 | 1,746 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 34–23 | 59.6% | #25 | 1,797 | 0 | 4 |
| 25 | 2009 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 27–22 | 55.1% | #17 | 1,771 | 0 | 4 |
| 26 | 2010 | 43–19 | 69.4% | #6 | 1,927 | 0 | 2 | 2013 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #29 | 1,797 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | 2011 | 46–21 | 68.7% | #6 | 1,977 | 1 | 3 | 2014 | 36–23 | 61.0% | #16 | 1,858 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2012 | 40–23 | 63.5% | #9 | 1,883 | 1 | 3 | 2015 | 31–21 | 59.6% | #9 | 1,829 | 0 | 6 |
| 29 | 2013 | 40–22 | 64.5% | #18 | 1,902 | 1 | 5 | 2016 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #62 | 1,696 | 0 | 7 |
| 30 | 2014 | 32–22 | 59.3% | #22 | 1,883 | 1 | 6 | 2017 | 35–19 | 64.8% | #30 | 1,791 | 0 | 7 |
| 31 | 2015 | 34–22 | 60.7% | #27 | 1,789 | 1 | 8 | 2018 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #105 | 1,754 | 0 | 7 |
| 32 | 2016 | 24–19 | 55.8% | #21 | 1,716 | 1 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2017 | 22–19 | 53.7% | #41 | 1,734 | 1 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2018 | 17–23 | 42.5% | #74 | 1,663 | 1 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2019 | 14–16 | 46.7% | #99 | 1,631 | 1 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2020 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #112 | 1,607 | 1 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 2021 | 1–9 | 10.0% | #382 | 1,522 | 1 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2022 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #529 | 1,511 | 1 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |