H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Shuai Peng vs Marina Erakovic H2H: 1-1
Shuai Peng and Marina Erakovic are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on grass. Most recently, Marina Erakovic won the 2013 Wimbledon second round 7-6(6) 6-6.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
CHN
Age 40
Right-Handed
177 cm / 5'10"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
NZL
Age 38
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 28, 2013* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R64 | Grass | Marina Erakovic | 7-6(6) 6-6 | Shuai Peng | Match data |
| Jun 11, 2011* | Birmingham | WTA 250 | QF | Grass | Shuai Peng | 6-4 4-6 6-3 | Marina Erakovic | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shuai Peng | #820 | #14 | 2,825 | 1,890 | 300 | 258 | 53.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Marina Erakovic | #827 | #39 | 1,392 | 1,701 | 105 | 131 | 44.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 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.
| Age | Shuai Peng | Marina Erakovic | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #518 | 1,493 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 2002 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #366 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2003 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #221 | 1,455 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #213 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2004 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #80 | 1,516 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2005 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #36 | 1,678 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #153 | 1,457 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2006 | 18–17 | 51.4% | #55 | 1,727 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #66 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2007 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #45 | 1,737 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 4–7 | 36.4% | #227 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2008 | 24–22 | 52.2% | #40 | 1,706 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #333 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2009 | 23–22 | 51.1% | #46 | 1,770 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #61 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2010 | 15–13 | 53.6% | #72 | 1,742 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 19–20 | 48.7% | #66 | 1,600 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2011 | 48–23 | 67.6% | #17 | 1,817 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #46 | 1,673 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2012 | 21–22 | 48.8% | #40 | 1,699 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 12–20 | 37.5% | #76 | 1,609 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2013 | 18–18 | 50.0% | #42 | 1,657 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #135 | 1,543 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2014 | 28–22 | 56.0% | #21 | 1,743 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #106 | 1,625 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2015 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #137 | 1,698 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 1–9 | 10.0% | #197 | 1,551 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2016 | 8–10 | 44.4% | #84 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2017 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #27 | 1,815 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2018 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #125 | 1,741 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2019 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #109 | 1,679 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2020 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #117 | 1,636 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |