H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Sandra Cacic vs Leila Meskhi H2H: 0-2
Leila Meskhi holds a 2–0 lead over Sandra Cacic in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Leila Meskhi leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Leila Meskhi won the 1995 Hobart third round 4-6 7-5 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.
USA
Age 51
Right-Handed
169 cm / 5'7"
H2H
0
–
2
2 main draw meetings
GEO
Age 58
Right-Handed
164 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 12, 1995* | Hobart | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Leila Meskhi | 4-6 7-5 7-5 | Sandra Cacic | Match data |
| May 26, 1994* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R64 | Clay | Leila Meskhi | 7-6(3) 4-6 7-5 | Sandra Cacic | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sandra Cacic | #409 | #39 | 548 | 1,730 | 58 | 96 | 37.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Leila Meskhi | #903 | #12 | 72 | 2,001 | 192 | 119 | 61.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
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 | Sandra Cacic | Leila Meskhi | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 1991 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #310 | 1,481 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1993 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #76 | 1,534 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1994 | 12–16 | 42.9% | #54 | 1,617 | 0 | 0 | 1987 | 11–7 | 61.1% | #46 | 1,655 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1995 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #114 | 1,602 | 0 | 0 | 1988 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #46 | 1,688 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1996 | 9–12 | 42.9% | #78 | 1,569 | 0 | 1 | 1989 | 21–14 | 60.0% | #30 | 1,794 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1997 | 7–11 | 38.9% | #60 | 1,581 | 0 | 1 | 1990 | 38–14 | 73.1% | #19 | 1,928 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 1998 | 7–16 | 30.4% | #82 | 1,568 | 0 | 1 | 1991 | 30–14 | 68.2% | #15 | 1,937 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 1999 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #188 | 1,518 | 0 | 1 | 1992 | 26–15 | 63.4% | #22 | 1,939 | 0 | 4 |
| 25 | 2000 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #140 | 1,514 | 0 | 1 | 1993 | 22–17 | 56.4% | #37 | 1,874 | 0 | 4 |
| 26 | 2001 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #117 | 1,583 | 0 | 1 | 1994 | 22–15 | 59.5% | #34 | 1,843 | 0 | 4 |
| 27 | 2002 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #322 | 1,570 | 0 | 1 | 1995 | 5–2 | 71.4% | #141 | 1,834 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2003 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #395 | 1,552 | 0 | 1 | 1996 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #838 | 1,748 | 0 | 5 |