H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 04:32 UTC
Tatjana Maria vs Anna-Lena Groenefeld H2H: 0-1
Anna-Lena Groenefeld holds a 1–0 lead over Tatjana Maria in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Anna-Lena Groenefeld leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Anna-Lena Groenefeld won the 2006 Stuttgart third round 6-3 2-6 6-0.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
GER
Age 38
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
GER
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 5, 2006* | Stuttgart | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Anna-Lena Groenefeld | 6-3 2-6 6-0 | Tatjana Maria | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tatjana Maria | #76 | #41 | 1,320 | 1,810 | 164 | 254 | 39.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Anna-Lena Groenefeld | #1,012 | #14 | 1,365 | 1,856 | 109 | 130 | 45.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 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.
| Tatjana Maria | Anna-Lena Groenefeld | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2006 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #136 | 1,481 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #118 | 1,515 | 0 | 0 |
| 2007 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #89 | 1,452 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 7–15 | 31.8% | #68 | 1,478 | 0 | 0 |
| 2008 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #223 | 1,423 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 36–26 | 58.1% | #21 | 1,786 | 0 | 0 |
| 2009 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #71 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 30–26 | 53.6% | #19 | 1,656 | 0 | 1 |
| 2010 | 8–16 | 33.3% | #137 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #204 | 1,527 | 0 | 1 |
| 2011 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #203 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 7–7 | 50.0% | #76 | 1,596 | 0 | 1 |
| 2012 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #112 | 1,473 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 18–23 | 43.9% | #65 | 1,655 | 0 | 1 |
| 2013 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #268 | 1,437 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #166 | 1,563 | 0 | 1 |
| 2014 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #160 | 1,446 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #266 | 1,542 | 0 | 1 |
| 2015 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #74 | 1,478 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2016 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #115 | 1,470 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2017 | 14–16 | 46.7% | #47 | 1,567 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2018 | 12–22 | 35.3% | #72 | 1,637 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2019 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #86 | 1,575 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2020 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #109 | 1,586 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2022 | 17–11 | 60.7% | #68 | 1,641 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2023 | 24–25 | 49.0% | #54 | 1,715 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2024 | 13–26 | 33.3% | #86 | 1,581 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2025 | 14–19 | 42.4% | #45 | 1,638 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2026 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #76 | 1,810 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |