H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 04:30 UTC
Sara Errani vs Mirjana Lucic-Baroni H2H: 2-1
Sara Errani holds a 2–1 lead over Mirjana Lucic-Baroni in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while Sara Errani leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Mirjana Lucic-Baroni won the 2015 Luxembourg fourth round 6-3 6-4.
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
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
CRO
Age 44
Right-Handed
181 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 23, 2015* | Luxembourg | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | 6-3 6-4 | Sara Errani | Match data |
| Sep 2, 2014* | US Open | Grand Slam | R16 | Hard | Sara Errani | 6-3 2-6 6-0 | Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | Match data |
| Jul 16, 2010* | Palermo | WTA 250 | R16 | Clay | Sara Errani | 6-0 7-6(4) | Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | 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 |
| Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | #424 | #20 | 1,924 | 1,798 | 136 | 166 | 45.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 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 | Sara Errani | Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1997 | 11–3 | 78.6% | #49 | 1,692 | 0 | 1 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1998 | 15–11 | 57.7% | #51 | 1,776 | 0 | 2 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1999 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #48 | 1,757 | 0 | 2 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2000 | 2–12 | 14.3% | #202 | 1,601 | 0 | 2 |
| 19 | 2006 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #174 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #192 | 1,596 | 0 | 2 |
| 20 | 2007 | 10–7 | 58.8% | #69 | 1,615 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #203 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 2008 | 29–21 | 58.0% | #42 | 1,747 | 0 | 2 | 2003 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #348 | 1,526 | 0 | 2 |
| 22 | 2009 | 25–27 | 48.1% | #47 | 1,656 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 23 | 2010 | 36–29 | 55.4% | #43 | 1,720 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 2011 | 30–26 | 53.6% | #45 | 1,671 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 25 | 2012 | 53–19 | 73.6% | #6 | 1,901 | 0 | 6 | 2007 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #455 | 1,538 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2013 | 46–22 | 67.6% | #7 | 1,894 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2014 | 35–23 | 60.3% | #14 | 1,773 | 0 | 7 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #258 | 1,519 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2015 | 46–26 | 63.9% | #20 | 1,752 | 0 | 8 | 2010 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #96 | 1,554 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2016 | 18–21 | 46.2% | #49 | 1,625 | 0 | 9 | 2011 | 8–14 | 36.4% | #129 | 1,551 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 2017 | 17–15 | 53.1% | #144 | 1,650 | 0 | 9 | 2012 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #105 | 1,535 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | 2018 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #112 | 1,765 | 0 | 9 | 2013 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #110 | 1,563 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | 2019 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #198 | 1,567 | 0 | 9 | 2014 | 12–8 | 60.0% | #60 | 1,706 | 0 | 3 |
| 33 | 2020 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #131 | 1,604 | 0 | 9 | 2015 | 17–26 | 39.5% | #68 | 1,657 | 0 | 3 |
| 34 | 2021 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #121 | 1,579 | 0 | 9 | 2016 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #80 | 1,629 | 0 | 3 |
| 35 | 2022 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #109 | 1,597 | 0 | 9 | 2017 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #32 | 1,698 | 0 | 3 |
| 36 | 2023 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #105 | 1,550 | 0 | 9 | 2018 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #327 | 1,689 | 0 | 3 |
| 37 | 2024 | 10–13 | 43.5% | #105 | 1,699 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2025 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #461 | 1,594 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |