H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 10:30 UTC
Sara Errani vs Anastasia Rodionova H2H: 1-1
Sara Errani and Anastasia Rodionova are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Anastasia Rodionova leads 1–0 on clay, while Sara Errani leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Anastasia Rodionova won the 2017 Charleston third round 6-2 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.
ITA
Age 39
Right-Handed
164 cm / 5'5"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
AUS
Age 44
Right-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 6, 2017* | Charleston | WTA 500 | R32 | Clay | Anastasia Rodionova | 6-2 6-2 | Sara Errani | Match data |
| Aug 28, 2014* | US Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Sara Errani | 6-4 7-6(2) | Anastasia Rodionova | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sara Errani | #461 | #5 | 5,835 | 2,024 | 384 | 299 | 56.2% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 9 |
| Anastasia Rodionova | #872 | #62 | 1,095 | 1,649 | 86 | 150 | 36.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Sara Errani | Anastasia Rodionova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2000 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #239 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2006 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #174 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #195 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2007 | 10–7 | 58.8% | #69 | 1,615 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 5–3 | 62.5% | #118 | 1,521 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2008 | 29–21 | 58.0% | #42 | 1,747 | 0 | 2 | 2003 | 7–8 | 46.7% | #165 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2009 | 25–27 | 48.1% | #47 | 1,656 | 0 | 2 | 2004 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #212 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2010 | 36–29 | 55.4% | #43 | 1,720 | 0 | 2 | 2005 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #140 | 1,517 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2011 | 30–26 | 53.6% | #45 | 1,671 | 0 | 2 | 2006 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #94 | 1,526 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2012 | 53–19 | 73.6% | #6 | 1,901 | 0 | 6 | 2007 | 11–20 | 35.5% | #78 | 1,525 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2013 | 46–22 | 67.6% | #7 | 1,894 | 0 | 7 | 2008 | 8–20 | 28.6% | #98 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2014 | 35–23 | 60.3% | #14 | 1,773 | 0 | 7 | 2009 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #95 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2015 | 46–26 | 63.9% | #20 | 1,752 | 0 | 8 | 2010 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #64 | 1,606 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2016 | 18–21 | 46.2% | #49 | 1,625 | 0 | 9 | 2011 | 8–21 | 27.6% | #108 | 1,573 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2017 | 17–15 | 53.1% | #144 | 1,650 | 0 | 9 | 2012 | 6–13 | 31.6% | #139 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2018 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #112 | 1,765 | 0 | 9 | 2013 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #162 | 1,502 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | 2019 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #198 | 1,567 | 0 | 9 | 2014 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #185 | 1,514 | 0 | 0 |
| 33 | 2020 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #131 | 1,604 | 0 | 9 | 2015 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #235 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 34 | 2021 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #121 | 1,579 | 0 | 9 | 2016 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #797 | 1,476 | 0 | 0 |
| 35 | 2022 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #109 | 1,597 | 0 | 9 | 2017 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #390 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 36 | 2023 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #105 | 1,550 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 2024 | 10–13 | 43.5% | #105 | 1,699 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2025 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #461 | 1,594 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |