H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 04:30 UTC
Sara Errani vs Julia Goerges H2H: 3-2
Sara Errani holds a 3–2 lead over Julia Goerges in their WTA head-to-head. Across 5 main-draw meetings, Sara Errani leads 2–0 on clay, while they are tied 1–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Sara Errani won the 2015 Roland Garros fourth 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
3
–
2
5 main draw meetings
GER
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 2, 2015* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R16 | Clay | Sara Errani | 6-2 6-2 | Julia Goerges | Match data |
| Jan 15, 2014* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Julia Goerges | 6-3 6-2 | Sara Errani | Match data |
| Feb 21, 2013* | Dubai | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Sara Errani | 6-3 4-6 6-4 | Julia Goerges | Match data |
| Apr 14, 2012* | Barcelona | WTA 250 | QF | Clay | Sara Errani | 6-2 6-3 | Julia Goerges | Match data |
| Jun 11, 2009* | Birmingham | WTA 250 | R32 | Grass | Julia Goerges | 6-4 5-7 7-5 | 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 |
| Julia Goerges | #45 | #9 | 3,980 | 1,940 | 304 | 249 | 55.0% | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 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.
| Sara Errani | Julia Goerges | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2007 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #126 | 1,543 | 0 | 0 |
| 2007 | 10–7 | 58.8% | #69 | 1,615 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #108 | 1,557 | 0 | 0 |
| 2008 | 29–21 | 58.0% | #42 | 1,747 | 0 | 2 | 2009 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #77 | 1,588 | 0 | 0 |
| 2009 | 25–27 | 48.1% | #47 | 1,656 | 0 | 2 | 2010 | 29–22 | 56.9% | #40 | 1,760 | 0 | 1 |
| 2010 | 36–29 | 55.4% | #43 | 1,720 | 0 | 2 | 2011 | 36–24 | 60.0% | #21 | 1,772 | 0 | 2 |
| 2011 | 30–26 | 53.6% | #45 | 1,671 | 0 | 2 | 2012 | 34–25 | 57.6% | #18 | 1,751 | 0 | 2 |
| 2012 | 53–19 | 73.6% | #6 | 1,901 | 0 | 6 | 2013 | 14–27 | 34.1% | #72 | 1,535 | 0 | 2 |
| 2013 | 46–22 | 67.6% | #7 | 1,894 | 0 | 7 | 2014 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #74 | 1,596 | 0 | 2 |
| 2014 | 35–23 | 60.3% | #14 | 1,773 | 0 | 7 | 2015 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #50 | 1,612 | 0 | 2 |
| 2015 | 46–26 | 63.9% | #20 | 1,752 | 0 | 8 | 2016 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #53 | 1,671 | 0 | 2 |
| 2016 | 18–21 | 46.2% | #49 | 1,625 | 0 | 9 | 2017 | 42–22 | 65.6% | #14 | 1,880 | 0 | 4 |
| 2017 | 17–15 | 53.1% | #144 | 1,650 | 0 | 9 | 2018 | 44–22 | 66.7% | #14 | 1,861 | 0 | 6 |
| 2018 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #112 | 1,765 | 0 | 9 | 2019 | 26–20 | 56.5% | #28 | 1,799 | 0 | 7 |
| 2019 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #198 | 1,567 | 0 | 9 | 2020 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #45 | 1,761 | 0 | 7 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |