H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Francesca Schiavone vs Vania King H2H: 0-1
Vania King holds a 1–0 lead over Francesca Schiavone in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Vania King leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Vania King won the 2014 US Open first round 6-3 3-6 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.
ITA
Age 46
Right-Handed
166 cm / 5'5"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 37
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 27, 2014* | US Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Vania King | 6-3 3-6 6-3 | Francesca Schiavone | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Francesca Schiavone | #486 | #4 | 5,246 | 1,984 | 439 | 367 | 54.5% | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 8 |
| 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 | Francesca Schiavone | 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #60 | 1,661 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #109 | 1,608 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 1999 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #200 | 1,494 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 7–19 | 26.9% | #128 | 1,512 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 2000 | 7–4 | 63.6% | #80 | 1,577 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #80 | 1,588 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2001 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #31 | 1,657 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #86 | 1,595 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2002 | 20–22 | 47.6% | #41 | 1,691 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #76 | 1,689 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2003 | 32–23 | 58.2% | #20 | 1,803 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #69 | 1,614 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2004 | 32–22 | 59.3% | #19 | 1,822 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #85 | 1,630 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2005 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #13 | 1,952 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #111 | 1,641 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2006 | 35–23 | 60.3% | #15 | 1,802 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #410 | 1,627 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2007 | 27–22 | 55.1% | #24 | 1,835 | 0 | 1 | 2016 | 13–11 | 54.2% | #78 | 1,643 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2008 | 22–21 | 51.2% | #30 | 1,757 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #492 | 1,590 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2009 | 35–25 | 58.3% | #17 | 1,837 | 0 | 2 | 2018 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #356 | 1,559 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2010 | 38–21 | 64.4% | #7 | 1,898 | 1 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2011 | 34–21 | 61.8% | #11 | 1,819 | 1 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2012 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #35 | 1,687 | 1 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2013 | 25–24 | 51.0% | #39 | 1,722 | 1 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2014 | 14–25 | 35.9% | #78 | 1,619 | 1 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2015 | 9–17 | 34.6% | #114 | 1,562 | 1 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2016 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #103 | 1,594 | 1 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 2017 | 11–14 | 44.0% | #91 | 1,619 | 1 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2018 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #486 | 1,501 | 1 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |