H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:32 UTC
Irina-Camelia Begu vs Vania King H2H: 1-0
Irina-Camelia Begu holds a 1–0 lead over Vania King in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Irina-Camelia Begu leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Irina-Camelia Begu won the 2014 Rio de Janeiro third round 6-4 6-0.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
ROU
Age 35
Right-Handed
181 cm / 5'11"
H2H
1
–
0
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 20, 2014* | Rio de Janeiro | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Irina-Camelia Begu | 6-4 6-0 | Vania King | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Irina-Camelia Begu | #204 | #22 | 1,925 | 1,886 | 249 | 234 | 51.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| 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 | Irina-Camelia Begu | 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 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #234 | 1,493 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #109 | 1,608 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #202 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 7–19 | 26.9% | #128 | 1,512 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 2011 | 16–11 | 59.3% | #40 | 1,657 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #80 | 1,588 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2012 | 22–18 | 55.0% | #52 | 1,729 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #86 | 1,595 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2013 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #131 | 1,559 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #76 | 1,689 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2014 | 14–15 | 48.3% | #41 | 1,617 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #69 | 1,614 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2015 | 30–20 | 60.0% | #31 | 1,711 | 0 | 2 | 2013 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #85 | 1,630 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2016 | 25–18 | 58.1% | #29 | 1,711 | 0 | 3 | 2014 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #111 | 1,641 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2017 | 20–22 | 47.6% | #43 | 1,667 | 0 | 4 | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #410 | 1,627 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2018 | 19–24 | 44.2% | #67 | 1,601 | 0 | 4 | 2016 | 13–11 | 54.2% | #78 | 1,643 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2019 | 11–16 | 40.7% | #102 | 1,555 | 0 | 4 | 2017 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #492 | 1,590 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2020 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #78 | 1,710 | 0 | 4 | 2018 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #356 | 1,559 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2021 | 17–15 | 53.1% | #62 | 1,736 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2022 | 25–15 | 62.5% | #34 | 1,834 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2023 | 17–14 | 54.8% | #75 | 1,781 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2024 | 10–7 | 58.8% | #79 | 1,807 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2025 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #144 | 1,760 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2026 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #204 | 1,726 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |