H2H data updated: 2026-07-20 02:15 UTC
Ekaterina Makarova vs Jie Zheng H2H: 0-1
Jie Zheng holds a 1–0 lead over Ekaterina Makarova in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Jie Zheng leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Jie Zheng won the 2012 Estoril third round 6-3 6-1.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
RUS
Age 38
Left-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
CHN
Age 43
Right-Handed
164 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 3, 2012* | Estoril | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Jie Zheng | 6-3 6-1 | Ekaterina Makarova | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ekaterina Makarova | #1,000 | #8 | 3,620 | 1,940 | 248 | 222 | 52.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| Jie Zheng | #961 | #15 | 2,745 | 1,898 | 216 | 193 | 52.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
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 | Ekaterina Makarova | Jie Zheng | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2002 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #185 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2007 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #110 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 7–8 | 46.7% | #84 | 1,535 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2008 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #46 | 1,626 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #79 | 1,551 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2009 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #60 | 1,634 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 24–15 | 61.5% | #44 | 1,705 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2010 | 14–20 | 41.2% | #49 | 1,662 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 25–16 | 61.0% | #33 | 1,778 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 2011 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #53 | 1,604 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #163 | 1,689 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 2012 | 26–19 | 57.8% | #20 | 1,757 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 20–10 | 66.7% | #25 | 1,838 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2013 | 24–18 | 57.1% | #24 | 1,838 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #35 | 1,779 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 2014 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #11 | 1,837 | 0 | 2 | 2010 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #26 | 1,760 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 2015 | 26–16 | 61.9% | #23 | 1,784 | 0 | 2 | 2011 | 18–23 | 43.9% | #48 | 1,705 | 0 | 3 |
| 28 | 2016 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #30 | 1,782 | 0 | 2 | 2012 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #26 | 1,658 | 0 | 4 |
| 29 | 2017 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #33 | 1,836 | 0 | 3 | 2013 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #53 | 1,688 | 0 | 4 |
| 30 | 2018 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #57 | 1,750 | 0 | 3 | 2014 | 12–13 | 48.0% | #91 | 1,670 | 0 | 4 |
| 31 | 2019 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #997 | 1,700 | 0 | 3 | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #962 | 1,648 | 0 | 4 |