H2H data updated: 2026-09-14 00:00 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 Open second 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.

Jie Zheng
CHN Age 43 Right-Handed 164 cm / 5'5"
H2H
1 – 1
2 main-draw meetings
Amélie Mauresmo
FRA Age 47 Right-Handed 175 cm / 5'9"

H2H Match Log

PlayerScorePlayerMatch DataDateRoundTournamentCategorySurface
Amélie Mauresmo #21 6-2 7-5 Jie Zheng #16 Match data May 13, 2009* R32 Madrid Open Premier Mandatory → modern equivalent WTA 1000 Clay
Jie Zheng #174 5-7 6-4 6-4 Amélie Mauresmo #24 Match data Mar 27, 2008* R32 Miami Open Tier I → modern equivalent WTA 1000 Hard

Estimated match date where the exact historical date is unavailable. Arrows show an edition's recorded category and documented modern equivalent; unresolved editions keep their recorded category. Asterisked totals include editions mapped from documented historical predecessor categories. Mapping details.

Career Comparison

Player Current Peak Pts Elo W L Win % GS 1000 including documented historical predecessor categories Finals 500 including documented historical predecessor categories 250 including documented historical predecessor categories Titles
Jie Zheng #961 #15 2,745 1,906 218 196 52.7% 0 0 0 0 4 4
Amélie Mauresmo #21 #1 4,992 2,225 463 185 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
YrW-LWin %RankEloGSTitles YrW-LWin %RankEloGSTitles
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 1,556 0 0
18 2002 1–1 50.0% #185 1,506 0 0 1998 20–18 52.6% #29 1,728 0 0
19 2003 7–8 46.7% #84 1,535 0 0 1999 32–14 69.6% #10 1,911 0 1
20 2004 10–18 35.7% #79 1,546 0 0 2000 26–13 66.7% #16 1,906 0 2
21 2005 24–15 61.5% #44 1,702 0 1 2001 43–12 78.2% #9 2,022 0 6
22 2006 25–16 61.0% #33 1,777 0 3 2002 45–15 75.0% #6 2,061 0 8
23 2007 7–10 41.2% #163 1,689 0 3 2003 45–17 72.6% #4 2,065 0 10
24 2008 22–11 66.7% #25 1,845 0 3 2004 61–12 83.6% #2 2,178 0 15
25 2009 27–21 56.2% #35 1,782 0 3 2005 53–16 76.8% #3 2,133 0 19
26 2010 23–18 56.1% #26 1,762 0 3 2006 50–14 78.1% #3 2,165 2 23
27 2011 18–23 43.9% #48 1,705 0 3 2007 27–14 65.9% #18 1,972 2 24
28 2012 25–24 51.0% #26 1,652 0 4 2008 30–19 61.2% #24 1,820 2 24
29 2013 17–17 50.0% #53 1,687 0 4 2009 25–12 67.6% #21 1,873 2 25
30 2014 12–13 48.0% #91 1,670 0 4 — — — — — — —
31 2015 0–1 0.0% #962 1,648 0 4 — — — — — — —

Surface Results by Age

Seasons are aligned by the age each player spent most of that calendar year. Results cover completed main-draw matches. Bold green marks the higher win percentage when both players have at least 5 matches on that surface at the aligned age.

Age Jie Zheng Amélie Mauresmo
Yr HardClayGrassCarpet Yr HardClayGrassCarpet
W L M Win % W L M Win % W L M Win % W L M Win % W L M Win % W L M Win % W L M Win % W L M Win %
15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1995 — — — — 0 1 1 0.0% — — — — — — — —
16 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1996 — — — — 1 1 2 50.0% 1 1 2 50.0% — — — —
17 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1997 — — — — 3 3 6 50.0% — — — — 1 3 4 25.0%
18 2002 1 1 2 50.0% — — — — — — — — — — — — 1998 9 7 16 56.3% 8 6 14 57.1% 1 2 3 33.3% 2 3 5 40.0%
19 2003 5 7 12 41.7% — — — — — — — — 2 1 3 66.7% 1999 19 7 26 73.1% 7 4 11 63.6% — — — — 6 3 9 66.7%
20 2004 6 10 16 37.5% 4 4 8 50.0% 0 3 3 0.0% 0 1 1 0.0% 2000 8 5 13 61.5% 13 4 17 76.5% 0 1 1 0.0% 5 3 8 62.5%
21 2005 17 11 28 60.7% 7 4 11 63.6% — — — — — — — — 2001 15 7 22 68.2% 16 3 19 84.2% 2 1 3 66.7% 10 1 11 90.9%
22 2006 12 9 21 57.1% 11 4 15 73.3% 2 2 4 50.0% 0 1 1 0.0% 2002 25 5 30 83.3% 7 5 12 58.3% 7 2 9 77.8% 6 3 9 66.7%
23 2007 2 4 6 33.3% 4 5 9 44.4% — — — — 1 1 2 50.0% 2003 23 11 34 67.6% 15 3 18 83.3% 1 1 2 50.0% 6 2 8 75.0%
24 2008 15 9 24 62.5% 2 1 3 66.7% 5 1 6 83.3% — — — — 2004 35 7 42 83.3% 19 3 22 86.4% 7 2 9 77.8% — — — —
25 2009 19 13 32 59.4% 5 5 10 50.0% 3 3 6 50.0% — — — — 2005 36 10 46 78.3% 9 2 11 81.8% 5 2 7 71.4% 3 2 5 60.0%
26 2010 16 12 28 57.1% 5 4 9 55.6% 2 2 4 50.0% — — — — 2006 32 10 42 76.2% 6 2 8 75.0% 7 1 8 87.5% 5 1 6 83.3%
27 2011 15 14 29 51.7% 2 6 8 25.0% 1 3 4 25.0% — — — — 2007 13 7 20 65.0% 6 4 10 60.0% 6 2 8 75.0% 2 1 3 66.7%
28 2012 17 15 32 53.1% 2 5 7 28.6% 6 4 10 60.0% — — — — 2008 21 14 35 60.0% 4 2 6 66.7% 3 2 5 60.0% 2 1 3 66.7%
29 2013 12 12 24 50.0% 5 4 9 55.6% 0 1 1 0.0% — — — — 2009 12 7 19 63.2% 4 3 7 57.1% 4 2 6 66.7% 5 0 5 100.0%
30 2014 6 8 14 42.9% 1 2 3 33.3% 5 3 8 62.5% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
31 2015 0 1 1 0.0% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Career — 143 126 269 53.2% 48 44 92 52.2% 24 22 46 52.2% 3 4 7 42.9% — 248 97 345 71.9% 118 46 164 72.0% 44 19 63 69.8% 53 23 76 69.7%

Performance Progression by Age

Seasons are aligned by the age each player spent most of that calendar year. Detailed serve and return statistics available for 286/397 of Jie Zheng's and 222/395 of Amélie Mauresmo's main draw matches. Sample is shown as matches with detailed serve and return statistics / total main draw matches. Bold green marks the stronger value when both stat samples contain at least 5 matches; lower is better for DFs/M.

Age Jie Zheng Amélie Mauresmo
Yr Sample Aces/M DFs/M 1st Sv% 1st Pts% 2nd Pts% BP Saved% BP Conv% Svc Pts% Ret Pts% Yr Sample Aces/M DFs/M 1st Sv% 1st Pts% 2nd Pts% BP Saved% BP Conv% Svc Pts% Ret Pts%
20 2004 5/28 0.2 3.2 67.1% 53.1% 34.7% 39.7% 34.3% 47.4% 39.7% — —/— — — — — — — — — —
21 2005 3/39 0.3 1.7 73.6% 54.5% 45.8% 58.2% 43.9% 52.9% 38.8% — —/— — — — — — — — — —
22 2006 24/41 0.5 2.0 72.3% 57.7% 47.0% 48.1% 46.4% 54.3% 46.5% — —/— — — — — — — — — —
23 2007 16/17 0.5 1.8 71.3% 62.6% 45.3% 56.9% 44.4% 57.9% 45.5% 2003 10/62 2.3 2.9 63.3% 73.3% 50.3% 41.3% 41.8% 65.2% 48.3%
24 2008 24/33 1.2 2.0 64.9% 62.6% 48.5% 56.7% 50.6% 57.3% 47.3% 2004 18/73 4.5 4.4 58.2% 74.6% 52.0% 54.6% 50.2% 65.2% 51.1%
25 2009 44/48 0.6 2.2 70.2% 61.5% 47.3% 51.4% 52.7% 57.3% 45.8% 2005 24/69 3.2 4.3 58.0% 72.7% 50.1% 57.2% 55.5% 63.0% 47.6%
26 2010 39/41 0.5 2.8 69.7% 57.6% 43.9% 55.1% 47.7% 53.4% 45.3% 2006 55/64 2.6 2.9 64.8% 68.0% 49.1% 60.4% 53.9% 61.2% 47.1%
27 2011 36/41 0.3 2.5 73.5% 57.0% 40.0% 48.0% 48.8% 52.5% 42.9% 2007 36/41 4.4 4.8 61.2% 69.9% 45.6% 56.1% 53.4% 60.6% 45.7%
28 2012 38/49 0.5 2.4 68.6% 60.5% 46.7% 49.0% 51.9% 56.3% 44.8% 2008 45/49 3.3 6.3 61.4% 67.4% 43.0% 56.0% 51.2% 57.9% 47.5%
29 2013 33/34 0.4 2.7 70.4% 56.4% 44.3% 47.0% 46.9% 52.9% 44.4% 2009 34/37 4.0 5.5 60.2% 67.0% 45.7% 55.9% 48.6% 58.9% 45.1%
30 2014 23/25 0.3 2.0 70.5% 57.6% 42.9% 53.2% 57.7% 53.1% 44.0% — —/— — — — — — — — — —
31 2015 1/1 0.0 3.0 64.7% 48.5% 27.8% 61.5% 14.3% 41.2% 37.9% — —/— — — — — — — — — —

Advanced Statistics Comparison by Age

Seasons are aligned by the age each player spent most of that calendar year. Metrics use eligible main-draw results; point statistics use matches with detailed data. Bold green marks the stronger value when both underlying samples are sufficient. Lower is better for Schedule because a negative value means a tougher schedule. Career Schedule is normalized per 100 matches.

Age Jie Zheng Amélie Mauresmo
Yr Elo P+ Serve+ Return+ PD TPW% Hard Elo Clay Elo Grass Elo Set Win % Set Margin Dec. Set Tiebreak Pressure+ Schedule Yr Elo P+ Serve+ Return+ PD TPW% Hard Elo Clay Elo Grass Elo Set Win % Set Margin Dec. Set Tiebreak Pressure+ Schedule
15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1995 1488 98.9 — — — — — — — 33.3% -1.00 0–1 — — +0.12
16 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1996 1523 102.5 — — — — — — — 50.0% -0.20 1–1 — — +0.03
17 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1997 1556 126.4 — — — — -24 +36 — 48.0% -0.08 1–4 (20%) 1–2 (33%) 97.2 -0.06
18 2002 1507 104.9 — — — — — — — 40.0% -0.60 1–0 1–1 — +0.03 1998 1729 146.0 — — — — -83 0 -114 51.2% +0.12 5–3 (63%) 5–4 (56%) 107.0 -0.59
19 2003 1536 113.8 — — — — +24 — — 51.6% +0.06 1–2 (33%) 1–0 — +0.41 1999 1912 159.1 — — — — -27 -138 — 61.2% +0.73 12–5 (71%) 5–5 (50%) 109.0 +1.67
20 2004 1547 127.3 -2.88 -1.53 0.755 43.6% +22 +39 -34 39.7% -0.48 2–5 (29%) 2–0 — +0.21 2000 1907 163.5 — — — — -30 +17 — 64.6% +1.38 5–7 (42%) 4–7 (36%) 93.9 -1.71
21 2005 1702 131.1 -0.46 -1.44 0.823 45.8% -19 -40 — 55.4% +0.42 11–5 (69%) 4–3 (57%) 107.3 -0.22 2001 2023 167.1 — — — — -34 +99 -402 70.7% +1.41 14–3 (82%) 10–3 (77%) 113.0 -2.74
22 2006 1778 132.0 -1.03 +1.40 1.019 50.5% -50 -22 -207 58.9% +0.37 7–8 (47%) 8–3 (73%) 103.8 -0.42 2002 2062 162.6 — — — — +32 -20 -255 74.0% +1.75 6–7 (46%) 10–5 (67%) 98.8 -0.13
23 2007 1690 124.7 +1.30 +1.45 1.082 51.4% -13 +33 — 45.9% -0.08 0–3 (0%) 0–3 (0%) 91.7 -0.24 2003 2065 163.0 +5.99 +3.35 1.388 56.1% +3 +92 — 69.4% +1.11 13–5 (72%) 13–2 (87%) 108.6 -2.28
24 2008 1845 147.4 +1.86 +3.35 1.109 52.4% -68 -101 -119 59.7% +1.01 7–1 (88%) 2–3 (40%) 107.4 -2.42 2004 2178 168.3 +7.28 +5.47 1.468 57.6% +1 +37 -262 78.5% +2.20 14–6 (70%) 8–5 (62%) 104.3 -0.48
25 2009 1782 142.7 +1.41 +2.49 1.073 51.6% +25 -47 -70 54.5% +0.39 10–6 (63%) 6–6 (50%) 104.2 -0.17 2005 2133 167.1 +5.80 +3.65 1.286 55.4% +23 +95 -185 72.0% +1.48 10–6 (63%) 7–2 (78%) 102.5 -0.83
26 2010 1763 139.6 -1.89 +1.53 0.971 49.4% +49 -45 -75 52.6% -0.01 9–6 (60%) 7–0 (100%) 106.1 +0.54 2006 2166 170.3 +5.44 +4.78 1.215 54.1% +18 +5 -62 70.5% +1.49 15–4 (79%) 8–3 (73%) 108.7 -3.85
27 2011 1705 120.3 -2.95 -0.51 0.903 47.7% +56 -98 -88 43.9% -0.58 9–9 (50%) 3–5 (38%) 95.0 +0.59 2007 1973 149.7 +4.23 +2.32 1.159 53.0% +81 +133 +141 63.4% +1.04 6–9 (40%) 6–8 (43%) 89.6 -1.04
28 2012 1653 131.5 +0.57 +1.44 1.024 50.6% +36 -75 +52 49.5% -0.10 6–7 (46%) 3–3 (50%) 100.4 -0.25 2008 1820 135.6 +2.15 +2.79 1.128 52.5% +25 +198 +234 56.9% +0.66 14–8 (64%) 8–9 (47%) 94.5 +0.52
29 2013 1688 126.6 -2.38 +0.84 0.941 48.5% -1 -50 — 47.5% -0.36 8–4 (67%) 5–3 (63%) 107.5 +0.29 2009 1873 146.4 +3.25 +2.00 1.095 52.0% +15 +92 +120 61.4% +0.83 12–4 (75%) 5–5 (50%) 103.7 -1.60
30 2014 1670 119.0 -1.86 +0.63 0.939 48.7% -33 -52 +57 46.2% -0.42 2–2 (50%) 5–1 (83%) 101.8 -0.53 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
31 2015 1648 95.9 -0.62 -1.23 0.644 39.3% — — — 0.0% -4.50 — — — +0.16 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Career — 1906 137.9 -0.68 +1.30 0.991 49.8% +7 -35 -39 50.9% +0.03 73–58 (56%) 47–31 (60%) 109.8 -0.49 — 2226 166.5 +4.45 +3.42 1.200 53.8% +5 +46 -86 66.9% +1.23 128–73 (64%) 90–60 (60%) 108.0 -2.04

Career Rivalries

Each player's five most-played main-draw opponents. The current matchup is highlighted when it appears in a player's top five.