H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Timea Babos vs Nadiia Kichenok H2H: 0-2
Nadiia Kichenok holds a 2–0 lead over Timea Babos in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Nadiia Kichenok leads 1–0 on grass and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Nadiia Kichenok won the 2014 Shenzhen third round 6-0 2-0 RET.
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
UKR
Age 33
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 2, 2014* | Shenzhen | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Nadiia Kichenok | 6-0 2-0 (ret.) | Timea Babos | Match data |
| Jun 12, 2013* | Birmingham | WTA 250 | R64 | Grass | Nadiia Kichenok | 6-3 6-4 | 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 |
| Nadiia Kichenok | #1,040 | #100 | 663 | 1,517 | 4 | 18 | 18.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Nadiia Kichenok | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 2013 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #88 | 1,540 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #101 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2014 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #99 | 1,482 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 2–8 | 20.0% | #192 | 1,442 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2015 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #70 | 1,564 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #324 | 1,415 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2016 | 35–27 | 56.5% | #28 | 1,712 | 0 | 1 | 2016 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #490 | 1,381 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2017 | 20–26 | 43.5% | #57 | 1,637 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 25 | 2018 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #59 | 1,614 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 26 | 2019 | 6–16 | 27.3% | #89 | 1,595 | 0 | 3 | 2019 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #627 | 1,425 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2020 | 0–6 | 0.0% | #115 | 1,542 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2021 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #160 | 1,497 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2022 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #336 | 1,455 | 0 | 3 | 2022 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #687 | 1,414 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2023 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #188 | 1,480 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2024 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #338 | 1,451 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |