H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Virginie Razzano vs Anna Chakvetadze H2H: 1-2
Anna Chakvetadze holds a 2–1 lead over Virginie Razzano in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Anna Chakvetadze leads 2–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Anna Chakvetadze won the 2009 Los Angeles second round 7-6(5) 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.
FRA
Age 43
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H
1
–
2
3 main draw meetings
RUS
Age 39
Right-Handed
171 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 5, 2009* | Los Angeles | WTA 500 | R64 | Hard | Anna Chakvetadze | 7-6(5) 6-3 | Virginie Razzano | Match data |
| Aug 13, 2007 | Toronto | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Virginie Razzano | 7-6 2-0 (ret.) | Anna Chakvetadze | Match data |
| Mar 23, 2006* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Anna Chakvetadze | 6-4 6-0 | Virginie Razzano | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Virginie Razzano | #1,226 | #16 | 2,420 | 1,876 | 200 | 216 | 48.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Anna Chakvetadze | #577 | #5 | 2,940 | 2,067 | 183 | 135 | 57.5% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 8 |
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 | Virginie Razzano | Anna Chakvetadze | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 1999 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #344 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2000 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #143 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #83 | 1,526 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2001 | 10–12 | 45.5% | #87 | 1,589 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 24–21 | 53.3% | #32 | 1,716 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2002 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #76 | 1,662 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 37–20 | 64.9% | #13 | 1,936 | 0 | 2 |
| 20 | 2003 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #72 | 1,613 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 56–19 | 74.7% | #6 | 1,984 | 0 | 6 |
| 21 | 2004 | 7–8 | 46.7% | #60 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 26–23 | 53.1% | #18 | 1,721 | 0 | 7 |
| 22 | 2005 | 16–22 | 42.1% | #51 | 1,608 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #67 | 1,711 | 0 | 7 |
| 23 | 2006 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #88 | 1,595 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 18–15 | 54.5% | #56 | 1,715 | 0 | 8 |
| 24 | 2007 | 34–20 | 63.0% | #28 | 1,805 | 0 | 2 | 2011 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #234 | 1,641 | 0 | 8 |
| 25 | 2008 | 14–20 | 41.2% | #58 | 1,633 | 0 | 2 | 2012 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #224 | 1,557 | 0 | 8 |
| 26 | 2009 | 31–20 | 60.8% | #19 | 1,801 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2010 | 9–15 | 37.5% | #113 | 1,660 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2011 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #83 | 1,681 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2012 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #160 | 1,633 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2013 | 9–8 | 52.9% | #99 | 1,683 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2014 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #165 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2015 | 4–2 | 66.7% | #200 | 1,657 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2016 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #169 | 1,647 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |