H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Elena Vesnina vs Vania King H2H: 1-1
Elena Vesnina and Vania King are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Vania King leads 1–0 on clay, while Elena Vesnina leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Elena Vesnina won the 2014 Pattaya third round 7-6(6) 6-7(5) 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 39
Right-Handed
176 cm / 5'9"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
USA
Age 37
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 30, 2014* | Pattaya | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Elena Vesnina | 7-6(6) 6-7(5) 6-1 | Vania King | Match data |
| May 20, 2010* | Strasbourg | WTA 500 | R32 | Clay | Vania King | 6-4 6-1 | Elena Vesnina | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elena Vesnina | #573 | #13 | 3,320 | 1,858 | 262 | 260 | 50.2% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| 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 | Elena Vesnina | 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 | 2004 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #259 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #60 | 1,661 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | 2005 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #106 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #109 | 1,608 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 2006 | 20–24 | 45.5% | #47 | 1,617 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 7–19 | 26.9% | #128 | 1,512 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 2007 | 17–21 | 44.7% | #54 | 1,631 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #80 | 1,588 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2008 | 12–19 | 38.7% | #79 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #86 | 1,595 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2009 | 31–20 | 60.8% | #23 | 1,767 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #76 | 1,689 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2010 | 22–22 | 50.0% | #52 | 1,720 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #69 | 1,614 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2011 | 19–21 | 47.5% | #57 | 1,689 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #85 | 1,630 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2012 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #68 | 1,701 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #111 | 1,641 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2013 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #25 | 1,801 | 0 | 2 | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #410 | 1,627 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2014 | 16–17 | 48.5% | #64 | 1,689 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 13–11 | 54.2% | #78 | 1,643 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2015 | 11–17 | 39.3% | #115 | 1,609 | 0 | 2 | 2017 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #492 | 1,590 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2016 | 28–16 | 63.6% | #16 | 1,778 | 0 | 2 | 2018 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #356 | 1,559 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2017 | 25–26 | 49.0% | #18 | 1,691 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2018 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #137 | 1,679 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2021 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #310 | 1,689 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |