H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:32 UTC
Tamara Zidansek vs Eugenie Bouchard H2H: 1-1
Tamara Zidansek and Eugenie Bouchard are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Eugenie Bouchard leads 1–0 on clay, while Tamara Zidansek leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Eugenie Bouchard won the 2020 Prague fourth round 7-6(2) 6-7(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.
SLO
Age 28
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
CAN
Age 32
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 14, 2020* | Prague | WTA 250 | R16 | Clay | Eugenie Bouchard | 7-6(2) 6-7(2) 6-2 | Tamara Zidansek | Match data |
| Jul 3, 2019* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R128 | Grass | Tamara Zidansek | 6-3 5-7 8-6 | Eugenie Bouchard | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tamara Zidansek | #148 | #22 | 1,991 | 1,800 | 83 | 92 | 47.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Eugenie Bouchard | #1,002 | #5 | 4,793 | 1,926 | 156 | 144 | 52.0% | 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 | Tamara Zidansek | Eugenie Bouchard | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #305 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #147 | 1,547 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2017 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #132 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 25–17 | 59.5% | #32 | 1,752 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2018 | 7–7 | 50.0% | #79 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 39–23 | 62.9% | #7 | 1,834 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2019 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #65 | 1,624 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 12–17 | 41.4% | #49 | 1,678 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2020 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #87 | 1,603 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 28–22 | 56.0% | #46 | 1,699 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2021 | 25–18 | 58.1% | #30 | 1,733 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | 10–19 | 34.5% | #81 | 1,604 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2022 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #85 | 1,602 | 0 | 1 | 2018 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #87 | 1,670 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2023 | 9–9 | 50.0% | #103 | 1,697 | 0 | 1 | 2019 | 4–10 | 28.6% | #215 | 1,616 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2024 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #181 | 1,644 | 0 | 1 | 2020 | 10–4 | 71.4% | #141 | 1,712 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2025 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #161 | 1,595 | 0 | 1 | 2021 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #253 | 1,703 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2026 | 4–2 | 66.7% | #148 | 1,696 | 0 | 1 | 2022 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #326 | 1,630 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #287 | 1,635 | 0 | 1 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2025 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #1002 | 1,609 | 0 | 1 |