H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:30 UTC
Timea Babos vs Zarina Diyas H2H: 0-2
Zarina Diyas holds a 2–0 lead over Timea Babos in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Zarina Diyas leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Zarina Diyas won the 2018 Strasbourg fourth round 7-6(2) 4-6 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
0
–
2
2 main draw meetings
KAZ
Age 32
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 27, 2019 | Beijing | WTA 1000 | Q1 | Hard | Zarina Diyas | 6-1 6-4 | Timea Babos | Match data |
| May 24, 2018* | Strasbourg | WTA 500 | R16 | Clay | Zarina Diyas | 7-6(2) 4-6 6-2 | Timea Babos | Match data |
| Jan 9, 2015* | Shenzhen | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Zarina Diyas | 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 |
| Zarina Diyas | #437 | #31 | 1,495 | 1,751 | 99 | 127 | 43.8% | 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 | Zarina Diyas | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #242 | 1,527 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #172 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #268 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #227 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #154 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #264 | 1,476 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2012 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #67 | 1,553 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #163 | 1,477 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2013 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #88 | 1,540 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 20–14 | 58.8% | #33 | 1,683 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2014 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #99 | 1,482 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 20–27 | 42.6% | #52 | 1,576 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2015 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #70 | 1,564 | 0 | 1 | 2016 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #150 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2016 | 35–27 | 56.5% | #28 | 1,712 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | 7–4 | 63.6% | #66 | 1,667 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2017 | 20–26 | 43.5% | #57 | 1,637 | 0 | 2 | 2018 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #89 | 1,718 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2018 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #59 | 1,614 | 0 | 3 | 2019 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #77 | 1,697 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2019 | 6–16 | 27.3% | #89 | 1,595 | 0 | 3 | 2020 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #80 | 1,655 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2020 | 0–6 | 0.0% | #115 | 1,542 | 0 | 3 | 2021 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #102 | 1,688 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2021 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #160 | 1,497 | 0 | 3 | 2022 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1031 | 1,680 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2022 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #336 | 1,455 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2023 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #188 | 1,480 | 0 | 3 | 2024 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #382 | 1,632 | 0 | 1 |
| 31 | 2024 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #338 | 1,451 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |