H2H data updated: 2026-08-08 02:15 UTC
Sania Mirza vs Tamira Paszek H2H: 0-1
Tamira Paszek holds a 1–0 lead over Sania Mirza in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Tamira Paszek leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Tamira Paszek won the 2011 Birmingham second round 6-3 4-6 6-2.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
IND
Age 39
Right-Handed
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
AUT
Age 35
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Winner | Score | Loser | Match Data | Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tamira Paszek | 6-3 4-6 6-2 | Sania Mirza | Match data | Jun 8, 2011* | Birmingham | WTA 250 | R64 | Grass |
* 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sania Mirza | #707 | #27 | 1,148 | 1,829 | 121 | 118 | 50.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Tamira Paszek | #446 | #299 | 230 | 1,782 | 100 | 129 | 43.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 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 | Sania Mirza | Tamira Paszek | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,512 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 6–2 | 75.0% | — | 1,599 | 0 | 1 |
| 16 | 2003 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #462 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 15–14 | 51.7% | — | 1,730 | 0 | 1 |
| 17 | 2004 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #169 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 16–18 | 47.1% | — | 1,697 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | 2005 | 27–16 | 62.8% | #34 | 1,677 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 5–9 | 35.7% | — | 1,626 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 2006 | 20–24 | 45.5% | #65 | 1,650 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 9–9 | 50.0% | — | 1,642 | 0 | 2 |
| 20 | 2007 | 30–20 | 60.0% | #31 | 1,755 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 19–21 | 47.5% | — | 1,654 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 2008 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #101 | 1,647 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 18–21 | 46.2% | — | 1,676 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2009 | 17–13 | 56.7% | #57 | 1,719 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 2–17 | 10.5% | — | 1,476 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 2010 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #141 | 1,604 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 1–4 | 20.0% | — | 1,469 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 2011 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #104 | 1,556 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 1–4 | 20.0% | — | 1,442 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2012 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #278 | 1,540 | 0 | 1 | 2016 | 7–9 | 43.8% | — | 1,519 | 0 | 3 |