H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Timea Babos vs Nadia Petrova H2H: 0-1
Nadia Petrova holds a 1–0 lead over Timea Babos in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Nadia Petrova leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Nadia Petrova won the 2012 Wimbledon second round 6-4 6-7(3) 9-7.
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
–
1
1 main draw meetings
RUS
Age 44
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 29, 2012* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R64 | Grass | Nadia Petrova | 6-4 6-7(3) 9-7 | 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 |
| Nadia Petrova | #578 | #3 | 3,882 | 2,077 | 441 | 276 | 61.5% | 0 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 13 |
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 | Nadia Petrova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1998 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #145 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #268 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #93 | 1,568 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #154 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #60 | 1,624 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2012 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #67 | 1,553 | 0 | 1 | 2001 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #39 | 1,682 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2013 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #88 | 1,540 | 0 | 1 | 2002 | 7–5 | 58.3% | #112 | 1,758 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2014 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #99 | 1,482 | 0 | 1 | 2003 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #12 | 1,924 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2015 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #70 | 1,564 | 0 | 1 | 2004 | 39–24 | 61.9% | #12 | 1,880 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2016 | 35–27 | 56.5% | #28 | 1,712 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 56–25 | 69.1% | #9 | 1,945 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2017 | 20–26 | 43.5% | #57 | 1,637 | 0 | 2 | 2006 | 48–19 | 71.6% | #6 | 1,990 | 0 | 6 |
| 25 | 2018 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #59 | 1,614 | 0 | 3 | 2007 | 37–18 | 67.3% | #14 | 1,931 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 2019 | 6–16 | 27.3% | #89 | 1,595 | 0 | 3 | 2008 | 47–24 | 66.2% | #11 | 1,923 | 0 | 9 |
| 27 | 2020 | 0–6 | 0.0% | #115 | 1,542 | 0 | 3 | 2009 | 30–21 | 58.8% | #20 | 1,821 | 0 | 9 |
| 28 | 2021 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #160 | 1,497 | 0 | 3 | 2010 | 32–20 | 61.5% | #15 | 1,828 | 0 | 9 |
| 29 | 2022 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #336 | 1,455 | 0 | 3 | 2011 | 25–21 | 54.3% | #29 | 1,781 | 0 | 10 |
| 30 | 2023 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #188 | 1,480 | 0 | 3 | 2012 | 37–18 | 67.3% | #12 | 1,917 | 0 | 13 |
| 31 | 2024 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #338 | 1,451 | 0 | 3 | 2013 | 9–13 | 40.9% | #104 | 1,718 | 0 | 13 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #362 | 1,648 | 0 | 13 |