H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Jie Zheng vs Amélie Mauresmo H2H: 1-1
Jie Zheng and Amélie Mauresmo are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Amélie Mauresmo leads 1–0 on clay, while Jie Zheng leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Amélie Mauresmo won the 2009 Madrid third round 6-2 7-5.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
CHN
Age 43
Right-Handed
164 cm / 5'5"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
FRA
Age 47
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 14, 2009* | Madrid | WTA 1000 | R32 | Clay | Amélie Mauresmo | 6-2 7-5 | Jie Zheng | Match data |
| Mar 27, 2008* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Jie Zheng | 5-7 6-4 6-4 | Amélie Mauresmo | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jie Zheng | #961 | #15 | 2,745 | 1,898 | 216 | 193 | 52.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| Amélie Mauresmo | #21 | #1 | 4,992 | 2,217 | 458 | 183 | 71.5% | 2 | 6 | 1 | 15 | 1 | 25 |
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 | Jie Zheng | Amélie Mauresmo | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #250 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1996 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #180 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1997 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #100 | 1,555 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2002 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #185 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #29 | 1,729 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2003 | 7–8 | 46.7% | #84 | 1,535 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 32–14 | 69.6% | #10 | 1,914 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 2004 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #79 | 1,551 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 26–12 | 68.4% | #16 | 1,932 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 2005 | 24–15 | 61.5% | #44 | 1,705 | 0 | 1 | 2001 | 43–12 | 78.2% | #9 | 2,029 | 0 | 6 |
| 22 | 2006 | 25–16 | 61.0% | #33 | 1,778 | 0 | 3 | 2002 | 45–15 | 75.0% | #6 | 2,060 | 0 | 8 |
| 23 | 2007 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #163 | 1,689 | 0 | 3 | 2003 | 45–17 | 72.6% | #4 | 2,061 | 0 | 10 |
| 24 | 2008 | 20–10 | 66.7% | #25 | 1,838 | 0 | 3 | 2004 | 56–11 | 83.6% | #2 | 2,175 | 0 | 15 |
| 25 | 2009 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #35 | 1,779 | 0 | 3 | 2005 | 53–16 | 76.8% | #3 | 2,127 | 0 | 19 |
| 26 | 2010 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #26 | 1,760 | 0 | 3 | 2006 | 50–14 | 78.1% | #3 | 2,135 | 2 | 23 |
| 27 | 2011 | 18–23 | 43.9% | #48 | 1,705 | 0 | 3 | 2007 | 27–14 | 65.9% | #18 | 1,960 | 2 | 24 |
| 28 | 2012 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #26 | 1,658 | 0 | 4 | 2008 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #24 | 1,815 | 2 | 24 |
| 29 | 2013 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #53 | 1,688 | 0 | 4 | 2009 | 25–12 | 67.6% | #21 | 1,871 | 2 | 25 |
| 30 | 2014 | 12–13 | 48.0% | #91 | 1,670 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #962 | 1,648 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |