H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Timea Babos vs Julia Goerges H2H: 1-2
Julia Goerges holds a 2–1 lead over Timea Babos in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while Julia Goerges leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Julia Goerges won the 2018 Montreal second round 3-6 7-6(3) 6-4.
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
–
2
3 main draw meetings
GER
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 8, 2018* | Montreal | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Julia Goerges | 3-6 7-6(3) 6-4 | Timea Babos | Match data |
| May 7, 2018 | Madrid | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Julia Goerges | 6-2 6-4 | Timea Babos | Match data |
| Feb 25, 2017* | Budapest | WTA 250 | SF | Hard | Timea Babos | 7-5 6-1 | Julia Goerges | 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 |
| Julia Goerges | #45 | #9 | 3,980 | 1,940 | 304 | 249 | 55.0% | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 7 |
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.
| Timea Babos | Julia Goerges | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #268 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #126 | 1,543 | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #154 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #108 | 1,557 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #67 | 1,553 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #77 | 1,588 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #88 | 1,540 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 29–22 | 56.9% | #40 | 1,760 | 0 | 1 |
| 2014 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #99 | 1,482 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 36–24 | 60.0% | #21 | 1,772 | 0 | 2 |
| 2015 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #70 | 1,564 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 34–25 | 57.6% | #18 | 1,751 | 0 | 2 |
| 2016 | 35–27 | 56.5% | #28 | 1,712 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 14–27 | 34.1% | #72 | 1,535 | 0 | 2 |
| 2017 | 20–26 | 43.5% | #57 | 1,637 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #74 | 1,596 | 0 | 2 |
| 2018 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #59 | 1,614 | 0 | 3 | 2015 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #50 | 1,612 | 0 | 2 |
| 2019 | 6–16 | 27.3% | #89 | 1,595 | 0 | 3 | 2016 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #53 | 1,671 | 0 | 2 |
| 2020 | 0–6 | 0.0% | #115 | 1,542 | 0 | 3 | 2017 | 42–22 | 65.6% | #14 | 1,880 | 0 | 4 |
| 2021 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #160 | 1,497 | 0 | 3 | 2018 | 44–22 | 66.7% | #14 | 1,861 | 0 | 6 |
| 2022 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #336 | 1,455 | 0 | 3 | 2019 | 26–20 | 56.5% | #28 | 1,799 | 0 | 7 |
| 2023 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #188 | 1,480 | 0 | 3 | 2020 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #45 | 1,761 | 0 | 7 |
| 2024 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #338 | 1,451 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |