H2H data updated: 2026-09-13 00:00 UTC

Venus Williams vs Martina Hingis H2H: 9-11

Martina Hingis holds an 11–9 lead over Venus Williams in their WTA head-to-head. Across 20 main-draw meetings, Martina Hingis leads 7–5 on hard courts, while they are tied 3–3 on clay. Most recently, Martina Hingis won the 2006 Italian Open semifinal 0-6 6-3 6-3.

Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.

Venus Williams
United States Age 46 Right-Handed 185 cm / 6'1"
H2H
9 – 11
20 main-draw meetings
Martina Hingis
SUI Age 45 Right-Handed 170 cm / 5'7"

H2H Match Log

PlayerScorePlayerMatch DataDateRoundTournamentCategorySurface
Martina Hingis #21 0-6 6-3 6-3 Venus Williams #12 Match data May 20, 2006* SF Italian Open Tier I → modern equivalent WTA 1000 Clay
Venus Williams #13 4-6 7-5 6-4 Martina Hingis #25 Match data May 5, 2006* R16 Warsaw Tier II → modern equivalent WTA 500 Clay
Venus Williams #1 7-5 6-3 Martina Hingis #4 Match data May 5, 2002* SF Hamburg Open Tier II → modern equivalent WTA 500 Clay
Venus Williams #3 6-3 7-6(6) Martina Hingis #1 Match data Mar 26, 2001* SF Miami Open Tier I → modern equivalent WTA 1000 Hard
Martina Hingis #1 6-1 6-1 Venus Williams #3 Match data Jan 28, 2001* SF Australian Open Grand Slam Hard
Venus Williams #3 4-6 6-3 7-5 Martina Hingis #1 Match data Aug 22, 2000 SF US Open Grand Slam Hard
Venus Williams #5 6-3 4-6 6-4 Martina Hingis #1 Match data Jul 6, 2000* QF Wimbledon Grand Slam Grass
Martina Hingis #1 6-4 7-6 Venus Williams #3 Match data Nov 15, 1999 SF WTA Finals WTA Finals Carpet
Venus Williams #3 6-3 6-4 Martina Hingis #1 Match data Oct 17, 1999* F Zurich Tier I → modern equivalent WTA 1000 Hard
Martina Hingis #1 6-1 4-6 6-3 Venus Williams #3 Match data Sep 11, 1999* SF US Open Grand Slam Hard
Martina Hingis #2 6-4 6-0 Venus Williams #4 Match data Aug 8, 1999* F San Diego Tier II → modern equivalent WTA 500 Hard
Venus Williams #5 6-4 1-6 6-4 Martina Hingis #1 Match data May 8, 1999* SF Italian Open Tier I → modern equivalent WTA 1000 Clay
Martina Hingis #1 6-3 6-4 Venus Williams #7 Match data Jun 4, 1998* QF Roland Garros Grand Slam Clay
Martina Hingis #1 6-3 2-6 6-3 Venus Williams #9 Match data May 10, 1998* F Italian Open Tier I → modern equivalent WTA 1000 Clay
Venus Williams #11 6-2 5-7 6-2 Martina Hingis #1 Match data Mar 24, 1998* SF Key Biscayne Tier I → modern equivalent WTA 1000 Hard
Martina Hingis #1 6-0 7-6 Venus Williams #12 Match data Mar 5, 1998 SF Indian Wells Open Tier I → modern equivalent WTA 1000 Hard
Venus Williams #21 3-6 6-4 7-5 Martina Hingis #1 Match data Jan 15, 1998* R16 Sydney International Tier II → modern equivalent WTA 500 Hard
Martina Hingis #1 6-0 6-4 Venus Williams #66 Match data Sep 7, 1997* F US Open Grand Slam Hard
Martina Hingis #1 6-2 6-1 Venus Williams #64 Match data Aug 1, 1997* R16 San Diego Tier II → modern equivalent WTA 500 Hard
Martina Hingis #2 6-4 6-2 Venus Williams #110 Match data Mar 23, 1997* R32 Key Biscayne Tier I → modern equivalent WTA 1000 Hard

Estimated match date where the exact historical date is unavailable. Arrows show an edition's recorded category and documented modern equivalent; unresolved editions keep their recorded category. Asterisked totals include editions mapped from documented historical predecessor categories. Mapping details.

Career Comparison

Player Current Peak Pts Elo W L Win % GS Olympics 1000 including documented historical predecessor categories Finals 500 including documented historical predecessor categories 250 including documented historical predecessor categories Titles
Venus Williams #469 #1 7,452 2,368 782 299 72.3% 7 1 9 2 19 11 49
Martina Hingis #19 #1 6,976 2,373 516 127 80.2% 5 0 17 2 16 3 43

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 Venus Williams Martina Hingis
YrW-LWin %RankEloGSTitles YrW-LWin %RankEloGSTitles
13 — — — — — — — 1994 5–3 62.5% #87 1,595 0 0
14 1994 1–1 50.0% — 1,525 0 0 1995 18–12 60.0% #16 1,825 0 0
15 1995 2–3 40.0% #205 1,561 0 0 1996 46–16 74.2% #4 2,157 0 2
16 1996 2–5 28.6% #216 1,570 0 0 1997 72–5 93.5% #1 2,313 3 14
17 1997 20–13 60.6% #22 1,830 0 0 1998 60–12 83.3% #2 2,264 4 19
18 1998 51–13 79.7% #5 2,099 0 3 1999 70–12 85.4% #1 2,287 5 26
19 1999 57–12 82.6% #3 2,248 0 9 2000 78–10 88.6% #1 2,318 5 35
20 2000 41–4 91.1% #3 2,337 2 15 2001 60–15 80.0% #4 2,126 5 38
21 2001 46–6 88.5% #3 2,358 4 21 2002 34–10 77.3% #10 2,051 5 40
22 2002 63–9 87.5% #2 2,303 4 28 — — — — — — —
23 2003 24–5 82.8% #11 2,260 4 29 — — — — — — —
24 2004 42–14 75.0% #9 2,077 4 31 2005 0–1 0.0% — 2,021 5 40
25 2005 34–10 77.3% #10 2,128 5 33 2006 53–19 73.6% #7 2,018 5 42
26 2006 13–6 68.4% #46 2,035 5 33 2007 20–12 62.5% #19 1,858 5 43
27 2007 46–10 82.1% #8 2,059 6 36 — — — — — — —
28 2008 40–11 78.4% #6 2,138 7 39 — — — — — — —
29 2009 38–16 70.4% #6 1,988 7 41 — — — — — — —
30 2010 38–7 84.4% #5 2,061 7 43 — — — — — — —
31 2011 8–4 66.7% #102 2,017 7 43 — — — — — — —
32 2012 24–9 72.7% #24 2,016 7 44 — — — — — — —
33 2013 15–11 57.7% #47 1,910 7 44 — — — — — — —
34 2014 33–15 68.8% #18 1,888 7 45 — — — — — — —
35 2015 39–14 73.6% #7 1,971 7 48 — — — — — — —
36 2016 24–15 61.5% #17 1,817 7 49 — — — — — — —
37 2017 38–15 71.7% #5 1,941 7 49 — — — — — — —
38 2018 15–11 57.7% #39 1,872 7 49 — — — — — — —
39 2019 20–15 57.1% #52 1,819 7 49 — — — — — — —
40 2020 1–8 11.1% #79 1,713 7 49 — — — — — — —
41 2021 3–9 25.0% #318 1,647 7 49 — — — — — — —
42 2022 0–4 0.0% #1000 1,602 7 49 — — — — — — —

Surface Results by Age

Seasons are aligned by the age each player spent most of that calendar year. Results cover completed main-draw matches. Bold green marks the higher win percentage when both players have at least 5 matches on that surface at the aligned age.

Age Venus Williams Martina Hingis
Yr HardClayGrassCarpet Yr HardClayGrassCarpet
W L M Win % W L M Win % W L M Win % W L M Win % W L M Win % W L M Win % W L M Win % W L M Win %
13 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1994 4 2 6 66.7% — — — — — — — — 1 1 2 50.0%
14 1994 — — — — — — — — — — — — 1 1 2 50.0% 1995 10 7 17 58.8% 7 3 10 70.0% 0 1 1 0.0% 1 1 2 50.0%
15 1995 0 2 2 0.0% — — — — — — — — 2 1 3 66.7% 1996 19 6 25 76.0% 11 6 17 64.7% 3 1 4 75.0% 13 3 16 81.3%
16 1996 2 3 5 40.0% 0 1 1 0.0% — — — — 0 1 1 0.0% 1997 39 2 41 95.1% 11 1 12 91.7% 7 0 7 100.0% 15 2 17 88.2%
17 1997 15 7 22 68.2% 2 2 4 50.0% 1 2 3 33.3% 2 2 4 50.0% 1998 31 7 38 81.6% 16 2 18 88.9% 5 1 6 83.3% 8 2 10 80.0%
18 1998 36 8 44 81.8% 9 2 11 81.8% 4 2 6 66.7% 2 1 3 66.7% 1999 40 6 46 87.0% 19 2 21 90.5% 0 1 1 0.0% 11 3 14 78.6%
19 1999 34 6 40 85.0% 12 2 14 85.7% 4 1 5 80.0% 7 3 10 70.0% 2000 43 6 49 87.8% 12 2 14 85.7% 8 1 9 88.9% 15 1 16 93.8%
20 2000 25 0 25 100.0% 6 3 9 66.7% 7 0 7 100.0% 3 1 4 75.0% 2001 39 7 46 84.8% 17 5 22 77.3% 0 1 1 0.0% 4 2 6 66.7%
21 2001 32 3 35 91.4% 5 2 7 71.4% 7 0 7 100.0% 2 1 3 66.7% 2002 28 8 36 77.8% 2 1 3 66.7% — — — — 4 1 5 80.0%
22 2002 35 5 40 87.5% 14 2 16 87.5% 6 1 7 85.7% 8 1 9 88.9% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
23 2003 8 2 10 80.0% 6 2 8 75.0% 6 1 7 85.7% 4 0 4 100.0% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
24 2004 21 9 30 70.0% 17 2 19 89.5% 1 1 2 50.0% 3 2 5 60.0% 2005 0 1 1 0.0% — — — — — — — — — — — —
25 2005 18 7 25 72.0% 9 3 12 75.0% 7 0 7 100.0% — — — — 2006 33 14 47 70.2% 14 3 17 82.4% 2 1 3 66.7% 4 1 5 80.0%
26 2006 1 2 3 33.3% 10 3 13 76.9% 2 1 3 66.7% — — — — 2007 13 10 23 56.5% 1 1 2 50.0% 2 1 3 66.7% 4 0 4 100.0%
27 2007 27 5 32 84.4% 12 5 17 70.6% 7 0 7 100.0% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
28 2008 29 9 38 76.3% 4 2 6 66.7% 7 0 7 100.0% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
29 2009 21 11 32 65.6% 11 4 15 73.3% 6 1 7 85.7% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
30 2010 19 3 22 86.4% 15 3 18 83.3% 4 1 5 80.0% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
31 2011 3 2 5 60.0% — — — — 5 2 7 71.4% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
32 2012 14 3 17 82.4% 8 4 12 66.7% 2 2 4 50.0% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
33 2013 12 8 20 60.0% 3 3 6 50.0% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
34 2014 27 11 38 71.1% 4 3 7 57.1% 2 1 3 66.7% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
35 2015 34 10 44 77.3% 2 3 5 40.0% 3 1 4 75.0% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
36 2016 14 11 25 56.0% 5 3 8 62.5% 5 1 6 83.3% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
37 2017 26 11 37 70.3% 6 3 9 66.7% 6 1 7 85.7% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
38 2018 12 7 19 63.2% 1 3 4 25.0% 2 1 3 66.7% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
39 2019 16 11 27 59.3% 2 2 4 50.0% 2 2 4 50.0% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
40 2020 1 6 7 14.3% 0 2 2 0.0% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
41 2021 2 4 6 33.3% 0 4 4 0.0% 1 1 2 50.0% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
42 2022 0 4 4 0.0% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Career — 487 189 676 72.0% 163 69 232 70.3% 98 27 125 78.4% 34 14 48 70.8% — 299 76 375 79.7% 110 26 136 80.9% 27 8 35 77.1% 80 17 97 82.5%

Performance Progression by Age

Seasons are aligned by the age each player spent most of that calendar year. Detailed serve and return statistics available for 581/732 of Venus Williams's and 84/104 of Martina Hingis's main draw matches. Sample is shown as matches with detailed serve and return statistics / total main draw matches. Bold green marks the stronger value when both stat samples contain at least 5 matches; lower is better for DFs/M.

Age Venus Williams Martina Hingis
Yr Sample Aces/M DFs/M 1st Sv% 1st Pts% 2nd Pts% BP Saved% BP Conv% Svc Pts% Ret Pts% Yr Sample Aces/M DFs/M 1st Sv% 1st Pts% 2nd Pts% BP Saved% BP Conv% Svc Pts% Ret Pts%
23 2003 11/29 3.8 5.8 55.2% 76.2% 43.8% 53.3% 47.0% 61.6% 51.3% — —/— — — — — — — — — —
24 2004 13/56 4.1 4.5 59.4% 72.2% 46.7% 41.6% 50.5% 61.9% 50.1% — —/— — — — — — — — — —
25 2005 18/44 2.9 4.2 64.4% 70.7% 45.1% 63.1% 52.0% 61.3% 50.1% 2006 54/72 1.5 2.3 63.9% 63.4% 52.8% 56.5% 51.8% 59.3% 49.6%
26 2006 16/19 3.1 4.3 62.7% 68.3% 47.0% 52.8% 45.6% 60.6% 48.5% 2007 30/32 1.8 2.5 65.3% 65.3% 49.8% 55.4% 50.1% 59.7% 48.6%
27 2007 53/56 3.6 5.3 59.4% 72.6% 46.6% 56.6% 51.8% 62.2% 48.6% — —/— — — — — — — — — —
28 2008 43/51 4.3 4.3 61.6% 72.0% 48.4% 55.6% 48.9% 62.7% 47.0% — —/— — — — — — — — — —
29 2009 48/54 5.4 4.7 57.3% 73.4% 49.9% 59.5% 51.4% 63.3% 46.1% — —/— — — — — — — — — —
30 2010 44/45 4.6 4.5 56.7% 73.5% 46.9% 53.7% 49.0% 61.9% 47.4% — —/— — — — — — — — — —
31 2011 9/12 6.0 2.8 64.4% 72.3% 51.7% 60.3% 45.5% 64.5% 45.7% — —/— — — — — — — — — —
32 2012 28/33 4.5 4.8 53.9% 68.9% 47.8% 50.7% 50.7% 59.2% 46.0% — —/— — — — — — — — — —
33 2013 23/26 2.8 4.6 56.9% 65.4% 43.4% 55.0% 50.8% 56.0% 47.2% — —/— — — — — — — — — —
34 2014 44/48 4.7 4.4 55.7% 71.6% 46.0% 56.6% 53.0% 60.4% 46.7% — —/— — — — — — — — — —
35 2015 35/53 4.6 2.9 58.6% 70.6% 49.7% 50.2% 48.0% 62.1% 45.0% — —/— — — — — — — — — —
36 2016 37/39 3.1 3.9 61.5% 65.5% 48.1% 52.8% 52.7% 58.4% 46.8% — —/— — — — — — — — — —
37 2017 46/53 3.5 5.2 60.9% 69.2% 46.3% 59.1% 46.0% 60.2% 46.0% — —/— — — — — — — — — —
38 2018 26/26 2.1 4.9 60.5% 63.9% 46.4% 53.6% 51.3% 56.7% 43.8% — —/— — — — — — — — — —
39 2019 34/35 1.8 3.7 63.2% 63.3% 43.3% 54.0% 45.9% 56.0% 43.6% — —/— — — — — — — — — —
40 2020 9/9 3.2 7.0 58.3% 63.2% 42.3% 61.2% 45.9% 54.5% 41.2% — —/— — — — — — — — — —
41 2021 12/12 3.4 4.4 62.1% 60.7% 37.2% 48.3% 44.1% 51.7% 39.2% — —/— — — — — — — — — —
42 2022 4/4 3.3 8.5 56.5% 65.1% 31.3% 49.0% 29.6% 50.4% 34.9% — —/— — — — — — — — — —
43 2023 10/10 3.6 4.4 60.1% 64.2% 38.7% 43.3% 39.2% 54.0% 40.5% — —/— — — — — — — — — —
44 2024 2/2 4.5 8.0 59.1% 60.9% 29.6% 49.4% 70.0% 47.9% 40.9% — —/— — — — — — — — — —
45 2025 4/4 3.5 5.5 54.2% 62.5% 31.3% 31.2% 48.2% 48.5% 40.7% — —/— — — — — — — — — —
46 2026 12/12 3.0 4.4 59.2% 63.3% 37.8% 46.5% 43.3% 53.3% 37.0% — —/— — — — — — — — — —
Career — 581/1,081 3.8 4.5 59.3% 69.4% 46.1% 54.4% 49.2% 59.8% 46.0% — 84/643 1.6 2.3 64.4% 64.1% 51.8% 56.1% 51.2% 59.4% 49.2%

Advanced Statistics Comparison by Age

Seasons are aligned by the age each player spent most of that calendar year. Metrics use eligible main-draw results; point statistics use matches with detailed data. Bold green marks the stronger value when both underlying samples are sufficient. Lower is better for Schedule because a negative value means a tougher schedule. Career Schedule is normalized per 100 matches.

Age Venus Williams Martina Hingis
Yr Elo P+ Serve+ Return+ PD TPW% Hard Elo Clay Elo Grass Elo Set Win % Set Margin Dec. Set Tiebreak Pressure+ Schedule Yr Elo P+ Serve+ Return+ PD TPW% Hard Elo Clay Elo Grass Elo Set Win % Set Margin Dec. Set Tiebreak Pressure+ Schedule
13 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1994 1596 137.2 — — — — +29 — — 66.7% +1.72 0–2 0–1 — +0.60
14 1994 1526 122.1 — — — — — — — 60.0% 0.00 0–1 — — -0.18 1995 1826 156.2 — — — — -51 -101 — 54.1% +0.20 10–4 (71%) 4–2 (67%) 111.3 -2.22
15 1995 1561 123.9 — — — — +29 — — 36.4% -0.36 1–0 0–1 — -0.31 1996 2157 176.6 — — — — -18 -319 -474 70.9% +1.71 8–6 (57%) 3–2 (60%) 106.0 -2.29
16 1996 1570 134.2 — — — — +31 — — 46.7% +0.47 1–2 (33%) 1–0 — -0.34 1997 2313 180.8 — — — — -10 -282 -433 82.8% +2.49 20–4 (83%) 7–4 (64%) 109.7 -0.45
17 1997 1831 160.2 — — — — +5 -255 -230 55.8% +0.44 8–5 (62%) 4–3 (57%) 108.3 -1.92 1998 2264 179.3 — — — — +21 -97 -263 78.0% +2.11 11–7 (61%) 8–2 (80%) 99.7 -2.67
18 1998 2100 174.0 — — — — +4 -331 -385 75.6% +2.04 9–4 (69%) 4–3 (57%) 108.8 -0.82 1999 2287 181.2 — — — — +22 -52 — 81.3% +2.39 9–3 (75%) 9–6 (60%) 100.4 -1.79
19 1999 2248 179.2 — — — — +7 -300 -461 77.5% +1.83 10–5 (67%) 9–4 (69%) 105.8 -4.08 2000 2318 181.6 — — — — +43 -82 -242 83.9% +2.67 9–5 (64%) 5–4 (56%) 98.2 -3.02
20 2000 2337 171.5 — — — — +16 -397 -317 84.0% +2.34 8–2 (80%) 6–3 (67%) 106.2 -2.30 2001 2127 173.7 — — — — +111 +135 — 77.2% +2.15 9–5 (64%) 7–2 (78%) 99.1 -1.01
21 2001 2358 172.4 — — — — +31 -379 -127 83.8% +2.48 8–1 (89%) 10–3 (77%) 106.1 -1.53 2002 2051 167.3 — — — — +75 +179 — 74.0% +1.87 5–3 (63%) 2–1 (67%) 99.3 -0.76
22 2002 2303 175.2 — — — — +58 -205 -10 81.3% +2.44 12–4 (75%) 7–3 (70%) 101.1 -2.34 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
23 2003 2261 155.8 +4.06 +5.13 1.337 56.1% +107 -163 +33 81.0% +2.37 4–3 (57%) 1–2 (33%) 97.7 -1.73 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
24 2004 2078 159.0 +4.27 +3.93 1.315 55.7% +59 +131 — 75.7% +1.99 6–3 (67%) 8–6 (57%) 99.4 +0.68 2005 2022 100.7 — — — — — — — 33.3% -1.00 0–1 — — -0.01
25 2005 2128 165.4 +4.52 +4.90 1.293 55.5% +29 +38 +223 75.0% +2.03 6–4 (60%) 7–2 (78%) 102.9 -2.36 2006 2019 166.1 +3.76 +5.53 1.218 54.3% +7 +209 -3 71.3% +1.62 8–10 (44%) 6–3 (67%) 96.4 -3.22
26 2006 2035 136.6 +3.30 +3.85 1.231 54.0% +67 +87 +280 63.8% +0.94 5–4 (56%) 3–2 (60%) 97.6 -0.08 2007 1859 147.6 +3.39 +4.14 1.205 54.0% +31 — +137 63.5% +1.15 3–7 (30%) 2–2 (50%) 91.3 +1.36
27 2007 2059 153.9 +5.55 +3.98 1.286 55.2% +31 +23 +331 79.0% +2.10 6–6 (50%) 6–5 (55%) 95.6 -1.59 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
28 2008 2138 163.5 +7.00 +3.95 1.260 54.6% -5 -109 +293 74.6% +1.81 7–5 (58%) 5–6 (45%) 99.1 -1.46 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
29 2009 1989 162.7 +7.24 +2.88 1.255 54.5% +47 -3 +361 65.1% +1.53 13–10 (57%) 3–12 (20%) 88.0 -2.55 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
30 2010 2062 156.7 +5.33 +3.88 1.244 54.7% +31 -11 +294 79.6% +1.80 6–2 (75%) 5–2 (71%) 104.0 +0.82 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
31 2011 2018 120.4 +4.82 +1.85 1.287 54.7% +52 — +278 70.8% +1.58 3–1 (75%) 0–2 — +0.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
32 2012 2016 150.4 +3.65 +3.04 1.127 52.6% +82 +19 +154 65.4% +1.15 9–3 (75%) 5–5 (50%) 99.5 -1.94 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
33 2013 1911 141.0 +0.75 +3.14 1.071 51.5% +85 +50 — 58.1% +0.65 6–6 (50%) 2–4 (33%) 92.5 -0.63 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
34 2014 1888 149.7 +4.15 +2.82 1.178 53.5% +57 +2 +268 66.4% +1.21 10–11 (48%) 5–6 (45%) 93.1 +0.59 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
35 2015 1971 157.4 +3.80 +3.44 1.187 53.2% +43 -131 +141 67.2% +1.27 13–4 (76%) 10–5 (67%) 105.5 -0.59 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
36 2016 1818 133.2 +2.07 +3.27 1.126 52.8% +13 +15 +295 62.0% +0.67 5–9 (36%) 11–4 (73%) 95.7 +1.30 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
37 2017 1941 149.8 +3.49 +3.26 1.155 53.0% -13 -79 +233 67.8% +1.01 11–6 (65%) 11–3 (79%) 106.7 -0.36 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
38 2018 1873 141.1 +0.84 +1.05 1.013 50.4% +44 -80 +237 54.0% +0.33 7–4 (64%) 3–3 (50%) 98.9 +0.67 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
39 2019 1820 145.6 +0.36 +1.07 0.992 50.0% +35 -40 +249 51.9% +0.05 9–4 (69%) 6–3 (67%) 103.1 -1.42 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
40 2020 1714 126.0 +0.01 -0.68 0.905 48.2% +47 — — 27.3% -1.14 0–4 (0%) 0–3 (0%) 90.8 -1.11 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
41 2021 1647 111.7 -2.68 -2.16 0.811 45.9% +79 -9 — 29.6% -1.59 1–2 (33%) 0–2 — -0.85 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
42 2022 1602 107.5 -2.82 -1.21 0.703 43.0% +66 — — 11.1% -2.78 0–1 0–1 — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Career — 2369 167.3 +3.54 +2.76 1.146 52.9% +33 -76 +111 68.9% +1.40 185–126 (59%) 137–101 (58%) 99.2 -2.45 — 2373 179.5 +3.63 +5.03 1.214 54.2% +28 -50 -259 75.7% +1.99 92–57 (62%) 53–29 (65%) 103.7 -2.41

Career Rivalries

Each player's five most-played main-draw opponents. The current matchup is highlighted when it appears in a player's top five.