H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Julia Goerges vs Vania King H2H: 1-0
Julia Goerges holds a 1–0 lead over Vania King in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Julia Goerges leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Julia Goerges won the 2012 Beijing second round 6-7(9) 7-5 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.
GER
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 37
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 3, 2012* | Beijing | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Julia Goerges | 6-7(9) 7-5 6-2 | Vania King | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Julia Goerges | #45 | #9 | 3,980 | 1,940 | 304 | 249 | 55.0% | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 7 |
| Vania King | #824 | #50 | 1,225 | 1,760 | 128 | 160 | 44.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 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.
| Julia Goerges | Vania King | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2007 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #126 | 1,543 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #164 | 1,520 | 0 | 0 |
| 2008 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #108 | 1,557 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #60 | 1,661 | 0 | 1 |
| 2009 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #77 | 1,588 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #109 | 1,608 | 0 | 1 |
| 2010 | 29–22 | 56.9% | #40 | 1,760 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 7–19 | 26.9% | #128 | 1,512 | 0 | 1 |
| 2011 | 36–24 | 60.0% | #21 | 1,772 | 0 | 2 | 2009 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #80 | 1,588 | 0 | 1 |
| 2012 | 34–25 | 57.6% | #18 | 1,751 | 0 | 2 | 2010 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #86 | 1,595 | 0 | 1 |
| 2013 | 14–27 | 34.1% | #72 | 1,535 | 0 | 2 | 2011 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #76 | 1,689 | 0 | 1 |
| 2014 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #74 | 1,596 | 0 | 2 | 2012 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #69 | 1,614 | 0 | 1 |
| 2015 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #50 | 1,612 | 0 | 2 | 2013 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #85 | 1,630 | 0 | 1 |
| 2016 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #53 | 1,671 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #111 | 1,641 | 0 | 1 |
| 2017 | 42–22 | 65.6% | #14 | 1,880 | 0 | 4 | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #410 | 1,627 | 0 | 1 |
| 2018 | 44–22 | 66.7% | #14 | 1,861 | 0 | 6 | 2016 | 13–11 | 54.2% | #78 | 1,643 | 0 | 1 |
| 2019 | 26–20 | 56.5% | #28 | 1,799 | 0 | 7 | 2017 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #492 | 1,590 | 0 | 1 |
| 2020 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #45 | 1,761 | 0 | 7 | 2018 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #356 | 1,559 | 0 | 1 |