H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Lucie Safarova vs Jie Zheng H2H: 2-0
Lucie Safarova holds a 2–0 lead over Jie Zheng in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Lucie Safarova leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Lucie Safarova won the 2012 New Haven fourth round 6-4 6-0.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
CZE
Age 39
Left-Handed
177 cm / 5'10"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
CHN
Age 43
Right-Handed
164 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 24, 2012* | New Haven | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Lucie Safarova | 6-4 6-0 | Jie Zheng | Match data |
| Aug 21, 2009* | Toronto | WTA 1000 | R16 | Hard | Lucie Safarova | 7-6(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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lucie Safarova | #1,269 | #5 | 4,055 | 1,929 | 351 | 270 | 56.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Jie Zheng | #961 | #15 | 2,745 | 1,898 | 216 | 193 | 52.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
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 | Lucie Safarova | Jie Zheng | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 2005 | 15–9 | 62.5% | #47 | 1,665 | 0 | 2 | 2002 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #185 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2006 | 21–21 | 50.0% | #42 | 1,625 | 0 | 3 | 2003 | 7–8 | 46.7% | #84 | 1,535 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2007 | 28–16 | 63.6% | #23 | 1,778 | 0 | 3 | 2004 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #79 | 1,551 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2008 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #63 | 1,640 | 0 | 4 | 2005 | 24–15 | 61.5% | #44 | 1,705 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2009 | 32–23 | 58.2% | #41 | 1,768 | 0 | 4 | 2006 | 25–16 | 61.0% | #33 | 1,778 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 2010 | 27–23 | 54.0% | #33 | 1,722 | 0 | 4 | 2007 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #163 | 1,689 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 2011 | 34–23 | 59.6% | #25 | 1,797 | 0 | 4 | 2008 | 20–10 | 66.7% | #25 | 1,838 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2012 | 27–22 | 55.1% | #17 | 1,771 | 0 | 4 | 2009 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #35 | 1,779 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 2013 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #29 | 1,797 | 0 | 5 | 2010 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #26 | 1,760 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 2014 | 36–23 | 61.0% | #16 | 1,858 | 0 | 5 | 2011 | 18–23 | 43.9% | #48 | 1,705 | 0 | 3 |
| 28 | 2015 | 31–21 | 59.6% | #9 | 1,829 | 0 | 6 | 2012 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #26 | 1,658 | 0 | 4 |
| 29 | 2016 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #62 | 1,696 | 0 | 7 | 2013 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #53 | 1,688 | 0 | 4 |
| 30 | 2017 | 35–19 | 64.8% | #30 | 1,791 | 0 | 7 | 2014 | 12–13 | 48.0% | #91 | 1,670 | 0 | 4 |
| 31 | 2018 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #105 | 1,754 | 0 | 7 | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #962 | 1,648 | 0 | 4 |