H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 04:32 UTC

Venus Williams vs Nadia Petrova H2H: 3-1

Venus Williams holds a 3–1 lead over Nadia Petrova in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Venus Williams leads 2–0 on grass, while Nadia Petrova leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Nadia Petrova won the 2010 Roland Garros fourth round 6-4 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
USA Age 46 Right-Handed 185 cm / 6'1"
H2H
3 – 1
4 main draw meetings
Nadia Petrova
RUS Age 44 Right-Handed 178 cm / 5'10"

H2H Match Log

DateTournamentCategoryRoundSurfaceWinnerScoreLoserMatch
May 31, 2010* Roland Garros Grand Slam R16 Clay Nadia Petrova #20 6-4 6-3 Venus Williams #2 Match data
Jun 29, 2003* Wimbledon Grand Slam R32 Grass Venus Williams #4 6-1 6-2 Nadia Petrova #27 Match data
Jan 4, 2002* Gold Coast WTA 250 SF Hard Venus Williams #3 7-6(1) 6-5 (ret.) Nadia Petrova #39 Match data
Jul 4, 2001* Wimbledon Grand Slam R16 Grass Venus Williams #2 6-2 6-0 Nadia Petrova #42 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
Venus Williams #467 #1 7,452 2,362 768 288 72.7% 7 9 1 20 10 47
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 Venus Williams Nadia Petrova
YrW-LWin %RankEloGSTitles YrW-LWin %RankEloGSTitles
14 1994 1–1 50.0% — 1,525 0 0 — — — — — — —
15 1995 2–3 40.0% #205 1,561 0 0 — — — — — — —
16 1996 2–5 28.6% #216 1,571 0 0 1998 2–2 50.0% #145 1,536 0 0
17 1997 20–13 60.6% #22 1,851 0 0 1999 3–5 37.5% #93 1,568 0 0
18 1998 50–13 79.4% #5 2,094 0 2 2000 12–15 44.4% #60 1,624 0 0
19 1999 57–11 83.8% #3 2,258 0 8 2001 20–21 48.8% #39 1,682 0 0
20 2000 35–4 89.7% #3 2,321 2 13 2002 7–5 58.3% #112 1,758 0 0
21 2001 46–6 88.5% #3 2,338 4 19 2003 36–20 64.3% #12 1,924 0 0
22 2002 63–9 87.5% #2 2,297 4 26 2004 39–24 61.9% #12 1,880 0 0
23 2003 24–5 82.8% #11 2,257 4 27 2005 56–25 69.1% #9 1,945 0 1
24 2004 40–13 75.5% #9 2,072 4 29 2006 48–19 71.6% #6 1,990 0 6
25 2005 34–10 77.3% #10 2,085 5 31 2007 37–18 67.3% #14 1,931 0 7
26 2006 13–6 68.4% #46 2,007 5 31 2008 47–24 66.2% #11 1,923 0 9
27 2007 46–10 82.1% #8 2,048 6 34 2009 30–21 58.8% #20 1,821 0 9
28 2008 37–10 78.7% #6 2,133 7 37 2010 32–20 61.5% #15 1,828 0 9
29 2009 38–16 70.4% #6 1,981 7 39 2011 25–21 54.3% #29 1,781 0 10
30 2010 38–7 84.4% #5 2,057 7 41 2012 37–18 67.3% #12 1,917 0 13
31 2011 8–4 66.7% #102 1,994 7 41 2013 9–13 40.9% #104 1,718 0 13
32 2012 22–8 73.3% #24 2,007 7 42 2014 1–5 16.7% #362 1,648 0 13
33 2013 15–11 57.7% #47 1,889 7 42 — — — — — — —
34 2014 33–15 68.8% #18 1,874 7 43 — — — — — — —
35 2015 39–14 73.6% #7 1,957 7 46 — — — — — — —
36 2016 24–14 63.2% #17 1,830 7 47 — — — — — — —
37 2017 38–15 71.7% #5 1,935 7 47 — — — — — — —
38 2018 15–11 57.7% #39 1,867 7 47 — — — — — — —
39 2019 20–15 57.1% #52 1,827 7 47 — — — — — — —
40 2020 1–8 11.1% #79 1,717 7 47 — — — — — — —
41 2021 3–9 25.0% #318 1,649 7 47 — — — — — — —
42 2022 0–4 0.0% #1000 1,603 7 47 — — — — — — —
43 2023 3–7 30.0% #412 1,594 7 47 — — — — — — —