H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Jie Zheng vs Lindsay Davenport H2H: 0-2
Lindsay Davenport holds a 2–0 lead over Jie Zheng in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Lindsay Davenport leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Lindsay Davenport won the 2006 Beijing fourth round 6-2 7-6(4).
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
0
–
2
2 main draw meetings
USA
Age 50
Right-Handed
189 cm / 6'2"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 22, 2006* | Beijing | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Lindsay Davenport | 6-2 7-6(4) | Jie Zheng | Match data |
| Mar 4, 2005* | Dubai | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Lindsay Davenport | 6-2 7-5 | Jie Zheng | 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 |
| Lindsay Davenport | #35 | #1 | 6,100 | 2,353 | 704 | 190 | 78.7% | 3 | 13 | 1 | 25 | 12 | 54 |
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 | Lindsay Davenport | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1991 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #348 | 1,504 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1992 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #161 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1993 | 31–15 | 67.4% | #20 | 1,858 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | 2002 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #185 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 44–15 | 74.6% | #6 | 2,022 | 0 | 3 |
| 19 | 2003 | 7–8 | 46.7% | #84 | 1,535 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 31–14 | 68.9% | #12 | 1,933 | 0 | 4 |
| 20 | 2004 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #79 | 1,551 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 41–15 | 73.2% | #9 | 2,013 | 0 | 6 |
| 21 | 2005 | 24–15 | 61.5% | #44 | 1,705 | 0 | 1 | 1997 | 57–16 | 78.1% | #3 | 2,161 | 0 | 12 |
| 22 | 2006 | 25–16 | 61.0% | #33 | 1,778 | 0 | 3 | 1998 | 68–14 | 82.9% | #1 | 2,283 | 1 | 18 |
| 23 | 2007 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #163 | 1,689 | 0 | 3 | 1999 | 58–11 | 84.1% | #2 | 2,297 | 2 | 25 |
| 24 | 2008 | 20–10 | 66.7% | #25 | 1,838 | 0 | 3 | 2000 | 56–13 | 81.2% | #2 | 2,228 | 3 | 29 |
| 25 | 2009 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #35 | 1,779 | 0 | 3 | 2001 | 64–10 | 86.5% | #1 | 2,275 | 3 | 36 |
| 26 | 2010 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #26 | 1,760 | 0 | 3 | 2002 | 24–9 | 72.7% | #12 | 2,153 | 3 | 36 |
| 27 | 2011 | 18–23 | 43.9% | #48 | 1,705 | 0 | 3 | 2003 | 48–15 | 76.2% | #5 | 2,076 | 3 | 37 |
| 28 | 2012 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #26 | 1,658 | 0 | 4 | 2004 | 64–10 | 86.5% | #1 | 2,203 | 3 | 44 |
| 29 | 2013 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #53 | 1,688 | 0 | 4 | 2005 | 58–11 | 84.1% | #1 | 2,199 | 3 | 50 |
| 30 | 2014 | 12–13 | 48.0% | #91 | 1,670 | 0 | 4 | 2006 | 21–8 | 72.4% | #25 | 2,122 | 3 | 50 |
| 31 | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #962 | 1,648 | 0 | 4 | 2007 | 13–1 | 92.9% | #72 | 2,147 | 3 | 52 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 23–6 | 79.3% | #35 | 2,063 | 3 | 54 |