H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 22:30 UTC
Christina Mchale vs Vania King H2H: 0-3
Vania King holds a 3–0 lead over Christina Mchale in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Vania King leads 3–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Vania King won the 2014 Washington fourth round 6-1 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.
USA
Age 34
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
0
–
3
3 main draw meetings
USA
Age 37
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 28, 2014 | Washington | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Vania King | 6-1 6-3 | Christina Mchale | Match data |
| Sep 1, 2010* | US Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Vania King | 6-3 0-6 6-1 | Christina Mchale | Match data |
| Mar 9, 2010* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R128 | Hard | Vania King | 7-5 6-3 | Christina Mchale | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Christina Mchale | #319 | #24 | 1,935 | 1,803 | 166 | 207 | 44.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Vania King | #824 | #50 | 1,225 | 1,760 | 128 | 160 | 44.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 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 | Christina Mchale | Vania King | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #164 | 1,520 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2009 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #231 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #60 | 1,661 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | 2010 | 8–9 | 47.1% | #109 | 1,556 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #109 | 1,608 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 2011 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #43 | 1,716 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 7–19 | 26.9% | #128 | 1,512 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 2012 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #33 | 1,676 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #80 | 1,588 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2013 | 13–18 | 41.9% | #66 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #86 | 1,595 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2014 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #52 | 1,647 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #76 | 1,689 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2015 | 18–21 | 46.2% | #63 | 1,635 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #69 | 1,614 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2016 | 24–21 | 53.3% | #45 | 1,698 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #85 | 1,630 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2017 | 19–26 | 42.2% | #64 | 1,690 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #111 | 1,641 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2018 | 8–17 | 32.0% | #151 | 1,568 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #410 | 1,627 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2019 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #88 | 1,652 | 0 | 1 | 2016 | 13–11 | 54.2% | #78 | 1,643 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2020 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #81 | 1,675 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #492 | 1,590 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2021 | 2–16 | 11.1% | #159 | 1,524 | 0 | 1 | 2018 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #356 | 1,559 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2022 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #319 | 1,452 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |