H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 10:30 UTC
Zarina Diyas vs Eugenie Bouchard H2H: 0-1
Eugenie Bouchard holds a 1–0 lead over Zarina Diyas in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Eugenie Bouchard leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Eugenie Bouchard won the 2015 Rome third round 6-3 6-4.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
KAZ
Age 32
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
CAN
Age 32
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 14, 2015* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R32 | Clay | Eugenie Bouchard | 6-3 6-4 | Zarina Diyas | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zarina Diyas | #437 | #31 | 1,495 | 1,751 | 99 | 127 | 43.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Eugenie Bouchard | #1,002 | #5 | 4,793 | 1,926 | 156 | 144 | 52.0% | 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 | Zarina Diyas | Eugenie Bouchard | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2011 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #227 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #305 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2012 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #264 | 1,476 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #147 | 1,547 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2013 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #163 | 1,477 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 25–17 | 59.5% | #32 | 1,752 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2014 | 20–14 | 58.8% | #33 | 1,683 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 39–23 | 62.9% | #7 | 1,834 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2015 | 20–27 | 42.6% | #52 | 1,576 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 12–17 | 41.4% | #49 | 1,678 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2016 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #150 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 28–22 | 56.0% | #46 | 1,699 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2017 | 7–4 | 63.6% | #66 | 1,667 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | 10–19 | 34.5% | #81 | 1,604 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2018 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #89 | 1,718 | 0 | 1 | 2018 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #87 | 1,670 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2019 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #77 | 1,697 | 0 | 1 | 2019 | 4–10 | 28.6% | #215 | 1,616 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2020 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #80 | 1,655 | 0 | 1 | 2020 | 10–4 | 71.4% | #141 | 1,712 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2021 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #102 | 1,688 | 0 | 1 | 2021 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #253 | 1,703 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2022 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1031 | 1,680 | 0 | 1 | 2022 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #326 | 1,630 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #287 | 1,635 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2024 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #382 | 1,632 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2025 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #1002 | 1,609 | 0 | 1 |