H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 04:30 UTC
Sara Errani vs Anna-Lena Groenefeld H2H: 1-1
Sara Errani and Anna-Lena Groenefeld are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Sara Errani leads 1–0 on clay, while Anna-Lena Groenefeld leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Sara Errani won the 2009 Palermo semifinal 6-3 4-6 6-1.
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
GER
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 18, 2009* | Palermo | WTA 250 | SF | Clay | Sara Errani | 6-3 4-6 6-1 | Anna-Lena Groenefeld | Match data |
| Mar 25, 2009* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Anna-Lena Groenefeld | 6-4 6-3 | Sara Errani | 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 |
| Anna-Lena Groenefeld | #1,012 | #14 | 1,365 | 1,856 | 109 | 130 | 45.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
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.
| Sara Errani | Anna-Lena Groenefeld | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2006 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #174 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #118 | 1,515 | 0 | 0 |
| 2007 | 10–7 | 58.8% | #69 | 1,615 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 7–15 | 31.8% | #68 | 1,478 | 0 | 0 |
| 2008 | 29–21 | 58.0% | #42 | 1,747 | 0 | 2 | 2005 | 36–26 | 58.1% | #21 | 1,786 | 0 | 0 |
| 2009 | 25–27 | 48.1% | #47 | 1,656 | 0 | 2 | 2006 | 30–26 | 53.6% | #19 | 1,656 | 0 | 1 |
| 2010 | 36–29 | 55.4% | #43 | 1,720 | 0 | 2 | 2007 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #204 | 1,527 | 0 | 1 |
| 2011 | 30–26 | 53.6% | #45 | 1,671 | 0 | 2 | 2008 | 7–7 | 50.0% | #76 | 1,596 | 0 | 1 |
| 2012 | 53–19 | 73.6% | #6 | 1,901 | 0 | 6 | 2009 | 18–23 | 43.9% | #65 | 1,655 | 0 | 1 |
| 2013 | 46–22 | 67.6% | #7 | 1,894 | 0 | 7 | 2010 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #166 | 1,563 | 0 | 1 |
| 2014 | 35–23 | 60.3% | #14 | 1,773 | 0 | 7 | 2011 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #266 | 1,542 | 0 | 1 |
| 2015 | 46–26 | 63.9% | #20 | 1,752 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2016 | 18–21 | 46.2% | #49 | 1,625 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2017 | 17–15 | 53.1% | #144 | 1,650 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2018 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #112 | 1,765 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2019 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #198 | 1,567 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2020 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #131 | 1,604 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2021 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #121 | 1,579 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2022 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #109 | 1,597 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2023 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #105 | 1,550 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2024 | 10–13 | 43.5% | #105 | 1,699 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2025 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #461 | 1,594 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |