H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Jie Zheng vs Sybille Bammer H2H: 0-2
Sybille Bammer holds a 2–0 lead over Jie Zheng in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Sybille Bammer leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Sybille Bammer won the 2009 Cincinnati second round 6-2 4-6 6-2.
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
AUT
Age 46
Left-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 12, 2009* | Cincinnati | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Sybille Bammer | 6-2 4-6 6-2 | Jie Zheng | Match data |
| Mar 7, 2006* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R128 | Hard | Sybille Bammer | 6-1 3-6 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 |
| Sybille Bammer | #161 | #19 | 2,014 | 1,844 | 130 | 139 | 48.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
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 | Sybille Bammer | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 2004 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #79 | 1,551 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #294 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2005 | 24–15 | 61.5% | #44 | 1,705 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2006 | 25–16 | 61.0% | #33 | 1,778 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 23 | 2007 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #163 | 1,689 | 0 | 3 | 2003 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #148 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2008 | 20–10 | 66.7% | #25 | 1,838 | 0 | 3 | 2004 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #175 | 1,441 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2009 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #35 | 1,779 | 0 | 3 | 2005 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2010 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #26 | 1,760 | 0 | 3 | 2006 | 19–26 | 42.2% | #49 | 1,569 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2011 | 18–23 | 43.9% | #48 | 1,705 | 0 | 3 | 2007 | 43–24 | 64.2% | #19 | 1,780 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2012 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #26 | 1,658 | 0 | 4 | 2008 | 24–24 | 50.0% | #26 | 1,682 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2013 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #53 | 1,688 | 0 | 4 | 2009 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #54 | 1,662 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 2014 | 12–13 | 48.0% | #91 | 1,670 | 0 | 4 | 2010 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #68 | 1,646 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #962 | 1,648 | 0 | 4 | 2011 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #161 | 1,569 | 0 | 2 |