H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Jie Zheng vs Tathiana Garbin H2H: 3-0
Jie Zheng holds a 3–0 lead over Tathiana Garbin in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Jie Zheng leads 3–0 on clay. Most recently, Jie Zheng won the 2010 Warsaw fourth round 6-1 6-1.
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
3
–
0
3 main draw meetings
ITA
Age 49
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 21, 2010* | Warsaw | WTA 500 | R16 | Clay | Jie Zheng | 6-1 6-1 | Tathiana Garbin | Match data |
| May 7, 2005* | Rabat | WTA 250 | QF | Clay | Jie Zheng | 6-3 7-6(3) | Tathiana Garbin | Match data |
| May 30, 2004* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R32 | Clay | Jie Zheng | 5-7 7-6(1) 6-2 | Tathiana Garbin | 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 |
| Tathiana Garbin | #86 | #22 | 1,255 | 1,710 | 167 | 207 | 44.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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 | Tathiana Garbin | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2005 | 24–15 | 61.5% | #44 | 1,705 | 0 | 1 | 1998 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #121 | 1,476 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2006 | 25–16 | 61.0% | #33 | 1,778 | 0 | 3 | 1999 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #126 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2007 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #163 | 1,689 | 0 | 3 | 2000 | 23–19 | 54.8% | #42 | 1,629 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2008 | 20–10 | 66.7% | #25 | 1,838 | 0 | 3 | 2001 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #91 | 1,577 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2009 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #35 | 1,779 | 0 | 3 | 2002 | 18–17 | 51.4% | #71 | 1,600 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2010 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #26 | 1,760 | 0 | 3 | 2003 | 12–17 | 41.4% | #82 | 1,557 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2011 | 18–23 | 43.9% | #48 | 1,705 | 0 | 3 | 2004 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #58 | 1,535 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2012 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #26 | 1,658 | 0 | 4 | 2005 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #85 | 1,557 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2013 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #53 | 1,688 | 0 | 4 | 2006 | 15–15 | 50.0% | #38 | 1,628 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2014 | 12–13 | 48.0% | #91 | 1,670 | 0 | 4 | 2007 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #36 | 1,647 | 0 | 1 |
| 31 | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #962 | 1,648 | 0 | 4 | 2008 | 14–20 | 41.2% | #55 | 1,564 | 0 | 1 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #59 | 1,597 | 0 | 1 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 9–17 | 34.6% | #87 | 1,575 | 0 | 1 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #86 | 1,569 | 0 | 1 |