H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Timea Babos vs Mirjana Lucic-Baroni H2H: 0-2
Mirjana Lucic-Baroni holds a 2–0 lead over Timea Babos in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Mirjana Lucic-Baroni leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Mirjana Lucic-Baroni won the 2016 Strasbourg fourth round 6-1 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
0
–
2
2 main draw meetings
CRO
Age 44
Right-Handed
181 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 19, 2016* | Strasbourg | WTA 500 | R16 | Clay | Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | 6-1 6-4 | Timea Babos | Match data |
| Sep 12, 2014* | Quebec City | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | 7-6(3) 6-2 | Timea Babos | 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 |
| Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | #424 | #20 | 1,924 | 1,798 | 136 | 166 | 45.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 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 | Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1997 | 11–3 | 78.6% | #49 | 1,692 | 0 | 1 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1998 | 15–11 | 57.7% | #51 | 1,776 | 0 | 2 |
| 17 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #268 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #48 | 1,757 | 0 | 2 |
| 18 | 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #154 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 2–12 | 14.3% | #202 | 1,601 | 0 | 2 |
| 19 | 2012 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #67 | 1,553 | 0 | 1 | 2001 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #192 | 1,596 | 0 | 2 |
| 20 | 2013 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #88 | 1,540 | 0 | 1 | 2002 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #203 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 2014 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #99 | 1,482 | 0 | 1 | 2003 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #348 | 1,526 | 0 | 2 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 25 | 2018 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #59 | 1,614 | 0 | 3 | 2007 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #455 | 1,538 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2019 | 6–16 | 27.3% | #89 | 1,595 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2020 | 0–6 | 0.0% | #115 | 1,542 | 0 | 3 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #258 | 1,519 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2021 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #160 | 1,497 | 0 | 3 | 2010 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #96 | 1,554 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2022 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #336 | 1,455 | 0 | 3 | 2011 | 8–14 | 36.4% | #129 | 1,551 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 2023 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #188 | 1,480 | 0 | 3 | 2012 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #105 | 1,535 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | 2024 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #338 | 1,451 | 0 | 3 | 2013 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #110 | 1,563 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 12–8 | 60.0% | #60 | 1,706 | 0 | 3 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 17–26 | 39.5% | #68 | 1,657 | 0 | 3 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2016 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #80 | 1,629 | 0 | 3 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #32 | 1,698 | 0 | 3 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2018 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #327 | 1,689 | 0 | 3 |