H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Jarmila Wolfe vs Vania King H2H: 1-1
Jarmila Wolfe and Vania King are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Jarmila Wolfe leads 1–0 on grass, while Vania King leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Vania King won the 2011 US Open second round 6-2 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.
AUS
Age 39
Right-Handed
174 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 1, 2011* | US Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Vania King | 6-2 6-0 | Jarmila Wolfe | Match data |
| Jun 10, 2009* | Birmingham | WTA 250 | R64 | Grass | Jarmila Wolfe | 6-4 6-4 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jarmila Wolfe | #623 | #25 | 2,060 | 1,799 | 104 | 137 | 43.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| 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 | Jarmila Wolfe | Vania King | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2003 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #195 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #164 | 1,520 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2004 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #222 | 1,515 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #60 | 1,661 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | 2005 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #147 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #109 | 1,608 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 2006 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #69 | 1,533 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 7–19 | 26.9% | #128 | 1,512 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 2007 | 6–14 | 30.0% | #142 | 1,475 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #80 | 1,588 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2008 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #99 | 1,505 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #86 | 1,595 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2009 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #110 | 1,562 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #76 | 1,689 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2010 | 19–12 | 61.3% | #42 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #69 | 1,614 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2011 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #33 | 1,696 | 0 | 2 | 2013 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #85 | 1,630 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2012 | 7–19 | 26.9% | #183 | 1,509 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #111 | 1,641 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2013 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #238 | 1,535 | 0 | 2 | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #410 | 1,627 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2014 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #71 | 1,555 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 13–11 | 54.2% | #78 | 1,643 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2015 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #105 | 1,537 | 0 | 2 | 2017 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #492 | 1,590 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2016 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #624 | 1,480 | 0 | 2 | 2018 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #356 | 1,559 | 0 | 1 |