H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Xinyun Han vs Nadia Petrova H2H: 0-1
Nadia Petrova holds a 1–0 lead over Xinyun Han in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Nadia Petrova leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Nadia Petrova won the 2010 Beijing second round 6-2 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.
CHN
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
RUS
Age 44
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 6, 2010* | Beijing | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Nadia Petrova | 6-2 6-2 | Xinyun Han | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xinyun Han | #1,386 | #105 | 597 | 1,565 | 21 | 33 | 38.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 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.
| Xinyun Han | Nadia Petrova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2008 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #339 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #145 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 |
| 2009 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #191 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #93 | 1,568 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #131 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #60 | 1,624 | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #324 | 1,501 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #39 | 1,682 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #391 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 7–5 | 58.3% | #112 | 1,758 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #157 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #12 | 1,924 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #111 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 39–24 | 61.9% | #12 | 1,880 | 0 | 0 |
| 2017 | 8–7 | 53.3% | #131 | 1,494 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 56–25 | 69.1% | #9 | 1,945 | 0 | 1 |
| 2018 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #159 | 1,504 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 48–19 | 71.6% | #6 | 1,990 | 0 | 6 |
| 2019 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #187 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 37–18 | 67.3% | #14 | 1,931 | 0 | 7 |
| 2020 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #207 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 47–24 | 66.2% | #11 | 1,923 | 0 | 9 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 30–21 | 58.8% | #20 | 1,821 | 0 | 9 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 32–20 | 61.5% | #15 | 1,828 | 0 | 9 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 25–21 | 54.3% | #29 | 1,781 | 0 | 10 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 37–18 | 67.3% | #12 | 1,917 | 0 | 13 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 9–13 | 40.9% | #104 | 1,718 | 0 | 13 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #362 | 1,648 | 0 | 13 |