H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Timea Babos vs Alison Riske-Amritraj H2H: 2-2
Timea Babos and Alison Riske-Amritraj are tied 2–2 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Alison Riske-Amritraj leads 2–1 on hard courts, while Timea Babos leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Alison Riske-Amritraj won the 2016 Tianjin third round 2-6 6-4 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.
HUN
Age 33
Right-Handed
179 cm / 5'10"
H2H
2
–
2
4 main draw meetings
USA
Age 36
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 13, 2016* | Tianjin | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Alison Riske-Amritraj | 2-6 6-4 6-3 | Timea Babos | Match data |
| Jan 9, 2016* | Shenzhen | WTA 250 | SF | Hard | Alison Riske-Amritraj | 6-2 6-4 | Timea Babos | Match data |
| Oct 16, 2015* | Tianjin | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Timea Babos | 6-3 6-3 | Alison Riske-Amritraj | Match data |
| Jun 13, 2012* | Birmingham | WTA 250 | R64 | Grass | Timea Babos | 6-4 4-6 7-6(2) | Alison Riske-Amritraj | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Timea Babos | #453 | #25 | 1,675 | 1,768 | 123 | 177 | 41.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Alison Riske-Amritraj | #1,157 | #18 | 2,360 | 1,853 | 191 | 202 | 48.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
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 | Timea Babos | Alison Riske-Amritraj | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #268 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #154 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2012 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #67 | 1,553 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #115 | 1,554 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2013 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #88 | 1,540 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #136 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2014 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #99 | 1,482 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #180 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2015 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #70 | 1,564 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 11–6 | 64.7% | #57 | 1,642 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2016 | 35–27 | 56.5% | #28 | 1,712 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 24–22 | 52.2% | #43 | 1,713 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2017 | 20–26 | 43.5% | #57 | 1,637 | 0 | 2 | 2015 | 15–24 | 38.5% | #97 | 1,602 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2018 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #59 | 1,614 | 0 | 3 | 2016 | 23–19 | 54.8% | #39 | 1,742 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2019 | 6–16 | 27.3% | #89 | 1,595 | 0 | 3 | 2017 | 21–24 | 46.7% | #70 | 1,650 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2020 | 0–6 | 0.0% | #115 | 1,542 | 0 | 3 | 2018 | 17–16 | 51.5% | #62 | 1,632 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2021 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #160 | 1,497 | 0 | 3 | 2019 | 26–23 | 53.1% | #18 | 1,797 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2022 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #336 | 1,455 | 0 | 3 | 2020 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #26 | 1,739 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 2023 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #188 | 1,480 | 0 | 3 | 2021 | 16–15 | 51.6% | #51 | 1,771 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 2024 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #338 | 1,451 | 0 | 3 | 2022 | 25–21 | 54.3% | #41 | 1,750 | 0 | 3 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 0–8 | 0.0% | #659 | 1,614 | 0 | 3 |