H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Tatiana Panova vs Miriam Oremans H2H: 1-0
Tatiana Panova holds a 1–0 lead over Miriam Oremans 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 Indian Wells second round 6-2 6-3.
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
NED
Age 53
Right-Handed
169 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 8, 2002* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Tatiana Panova | 6-2 6-3 | Miriam Oremans | 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 |
| Miriam Oremans | #193 | #25 | 585 | 1,809 | 161 | 181 | 47.1% | 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 | Miriam Oremans | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1990 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #185 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1995 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #179 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #149 | 1,471 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1996 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #159 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #130 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1997 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #97 | 1,475 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 28–20 | 58.3% | #31 | 1,747 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1998 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #78 | 1,472 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #48 | 1,733 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1999 | 14–23 | 37.8% | #40 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 19–18 | 51.4% | #42 | 1,769 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2000 | 23–28 | 45.1% | #34 | 1,698 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 17–18 | 48.6% | #46 | 1,714 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2001 | 22–30 | 42.3% | #40 | 1,664 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 15–15 | 50.0% | #46 | 1,774 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2002 | 34–31 | 52.3% | #23 | 1,752 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #57 | 1,729 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2003 | 7–13 | 35.0% | #114 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 8–17 | 32.0% | #98 | 1,628 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2004 | 8–14 | 36.4% | #77 | 1,595 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 16–12 | 57.1% | #64 | 1,701 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2005 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #91 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #84 | 1,686 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2006 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #376 | 1,470 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #124 | 1,611 | 0 | 0 |