H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Jie Zheng vs Maria Elena Camerin H2H: 0-2
Maria Elena Camerin holds a 2–0 lead over Jie Zheng in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Maria Elena Camerin leads 2–0 on clay. Most recently, Maria Elena Camerin won the 2010 Rome second round 6-4 4-6 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
ITA
Age 44
Right-Handed
164 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 5, 2010* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Maria Elena Camerin | 6-4 4-6 6-4 | Jie Zheng | Match data |
| May 9, 2007* | Berlin | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Maria Elena Camerin | 3-6 6-3 6-4 | 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 |
| Maria Elena Camerin | #817 | #41 | 774 | 1,666 | 97 | 147 | 39.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Maria Elena Camerin | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 2002 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #185 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2003 | 7–8 | 46.7% | #84 | 1,535 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 6–5 | 54.5% | #112 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2004 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #79 | 1,551 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #123 | 1,525 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2005 | 24–15 | 61.5% | #44 | 1,705 | 0 | 1 | 2003 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #100 | 1,495 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2006 | 25–16 | 61.0% | #33 | 1,778 | 0 | 3 | 2004 | 21–19 | 52.5% | #43 | 1,657 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2007 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #163 | 1,689 | 0 | 3 | 2005 | 11–22 | 33.3% | #99 | 1,563 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2008 | 20–10 | 66.7% | #25 | 1,838 | 0 | 3 | 2006 | 22–23 | 48.9% | #50 | 1,611 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2009 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #35 | 1,779 | 0 | 3 | 2007 | 9–18 | 33.3% | #100 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2010 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #26 | 1,760 | 0 | 3 | 2008 | 5–11 | 31.2% | #104 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2011 | 18–23 | 43.9% | #48 | 1,705 | 0 | 3 | 2009 | 5–14 | 26.3% | #114 | 1,475 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2012 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #26 | 1,658 | 0 | 4 | 2010 | 6–11 | 35.3% | #111 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2013 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #53 | 1,688 | 0 | 4 | 2011 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #177 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2014 | 12–13 | 48.0% | #91 | 1,670 | 0 | 4 | 2012 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #168 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #962 | 1,648 | 0 | 4 | 2013 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #192 | 1,520 | 0 | 0 |