H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Timea Babos vs Chanelle Scheepers H2H: 1-1
Timea Babos and Chanelle Scheepers are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Chanelle Scheepers leads 1–0 on clay, while Timea Babos leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Chanelle Scheepers won the 2014 Rio de Janeiro third round 2-6 6-3 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.
HUN
Age 33
Right-Handed
179 cm / 5'10"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
RSA
Age 42
Right-Handed
176 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 20, 2014* | Rio de Janeiro | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Chanelle Scheepers | 2-6 6-3 6-2 | Timea Babos | Match data |
| Mar 1, 2013* | Florianopolis | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Timea Babos | 6-1 6-2 | Chanelle Scheepers | 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 |
| Chanelle Scheepers | #429 | #37 | 1,505 | 1,725 | 87 | 108 | 44.6% | 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 | Timea Babos | Chanelle Scheepers | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2003 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #299 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2013 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #88 | 1,540 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2014 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #99 | 1,482 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2015 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #70 | 1,564 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 23 | 2016 | 35–27 | 56.5% | #28 | 1,712 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 2017 | 20–26 | 43.5% | #57 | 1,637 | 0 | 2 | 2008 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #187 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2018 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #59 | 1,614 | 0 | 3 | 2009 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #127 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2019 | 6–16 | 27.3% | #89 | 1,595 | 0 | 3 | 2010 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #103 | 1,523 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2020 | 0–6 | 0.0% | #115 | 1,542 | 0 | 3 | 2011 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #38 | 1,658 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2021 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #160 | 1,497 | 0 | 3 | 2012 | 24–26 | 48.0% | #60 | 1,677 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2022 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #336 | 1,455 | 0 | 3 | 2013 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #80 | 1,572 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2023 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #188 | 1,480 | 0 | 3 | 2014 | 15–17 | 46.9% | #77 | 1,620 | 0 | 1 |
| 31 | 2024 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #338 | 1,451 | 0 | 3 | 2015 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #424 | 1,569 | 0 | 1 |