H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Svetlana Kuznetsova vs Maja Matevzic H2H: 0-1
Maja Matevzic holds a 1–0 lead over Svetlana Kuznetsova in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Maja Matevzic leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Maja Matevzic won the 2002 Oporto fourth round 6-1 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.
RUS
Age 41
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
SLO
Age 46
Left-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 5, 2002* | Oporto | WTA 250 | R16 | Clay | Maja Matevzic | 6-1 6-2 | Svetlana Kuznetsova | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Svetlana Kuznetsova | #1,203 | #2 | 6,191 | 2,097 | 580 | 319 | 64.5% | 2 | 2 | 0 | 10 | 4 | 18 |
| Maja Matevzic | #1,250 | #38 | 840 | 1,711 | 45 | 50 | 47.4% | 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 | Svetlana Kuznetsova | Maja Matevzic | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2001 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #266 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2002 | 22–9 | 71.0% | #43 | 1,744 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2003 | 22–16 | 57.9% | #35 | 1,819 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2004 | 54–19 | 74.0% | #5 | 2,026 | 1 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 2005 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #18 | 1,868 | 1 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2006 | 61–20 | 75.3% | #4 | 2,039 | 1 | 8 | 2001 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #75 | 1,524 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2007 | 51–20 | 71.8% | #2 | 1,994 | 1 | 9 | 2002 | 23–22 | 51.1% | #51 | 1,684 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2008 | 41–20 | 67.2% | #8 | 1,934 | 1 | 9 | 2003 | 19–19 | 50.0% | #57 | 1,695 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2009 | 41–16 | 71.9% | #3 | 1,981 | 2 | 12 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 25 | 2010 | 26–16 | 61.9% | #27 | 1,884 | 2 | 13 | 2005 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #649 | 1,608 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2011 | 31–19 | 62.0% | #19 | 1,804 | 2 | 13 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2012 | 13–12 | 52.0% | #71 | 1,776 | 2 | 13 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2013 | 29–18 | 61.7% | #21 | 1,827 | 2 | 13 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2014 | 27–18 | 60.0% | #27 | 1,845 | 2 | 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2015 | 26–19 | 57.8% | #25 | 1,836 | 2 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2016 | 40–20 | 66.7% | #9 | 1,917 | 2 | 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2017 | 32–17 | 65.3% | #12 | 1,826 | 2 | 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2018 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #106 | 1,709 | 2 | 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2019 | 14–13 | 51.9% | #53 | 1,772 | 2 | 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2020 | 8–7 | 53.3% | #36 | 1,799 | 2 | 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2021 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #109 | 1,726 | 2 | 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |