H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Tatiana Panova vs Lilia Osterloh H2H: 1-0
Tatiana Panova holds a 1–0 lead over Lilia Osterloh in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Tatiana Panova leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Tatiana Panova won the 2002 US Open first round 6-1 6-1.
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 49
Right-Handed
154 cm / 5'1"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 48
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 28, 2002* | US Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Tatiana Panova | 6-1 6-1 | Lilia Osterloh | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tatiana Panova | #1,113 | #20 | 1,270 | 1,782 | 130 | 196 | 39.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Lilia Osterloh | #1,223 | #41 | 738 | 1,697 | 83 | 138 | 37.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Tatiana Panova | Lilia Osterloh | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 1994 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #142 | 1,508 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1995 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #179 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #195 | 1,518 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1996 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #159 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #170 | 1,551 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1997 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #97 | 1,475 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #120 | 1,501 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1998 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #78 | 1,472 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 9–13 | 40.9% | #79 | 1,545 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1999 | 14–23 | 37.8% | #40 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #43 | 1,595 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2000 | 23–28 | 45.1% | #34 | 1,698 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 23–25 | 47.9% | #53 | 1,659 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2001 | 22–30 | 42.3% | #40 | 1,664 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #156 | 1,535 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2002 | 34–31 | 52.3% | #23 | 1,752 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #180 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2003 | 7–13 | 35.0% | #114 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #119 | 1,561 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2004 | 8–14 | 36.4% | #77 | 1,595 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #144 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2005 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #91 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #118 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2006 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #376 | 1,470 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #91 | 1,543 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #230 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #136 | 1,510 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #237 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 |