H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Monica Niculescu vs Jie Zheng H2H: 0-1
Jie Zheng holds a 1–0 lead over Monica Niculescu in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Jie Zheng leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Jie Zheng won the 2012 Auckland fourth round 6-0 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.
ROU
Age 38
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
CHN
Age 43
Right-Handed
164 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 6, 2012* | Auckland | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Jie Zheng | 6-0 6-2 | Monica Niculescu | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Monica Niculescu | #958 | #28 | 1,960 | 1,807 | 176 | 213 | 45.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| 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 | Monica Niculescu | Jie Zheng | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #152 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 7–8 | 46.7% | #84 | 1,535 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2008 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #48 | 1,542 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #79 | 1,551 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2009 | 10–22 | 31.2% | #103 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 24–15 | 61.5% | #44 | 1,705 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2010 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #82 | 1,573 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 25–16 | 61.0% | #33 | 1,778 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 2011 | 21–15 | 58.3% | #30 | 1,755 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #163 | 1,689 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 2012 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #58 | 1,639 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 20–10 | 66.7% | #25 | 1,838 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2013 | 22–21 | 51.2% | #59 | 1,637 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #35 | 1,779 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 2014 | 22–19 | 53.7% | #46 | 1,687 | 0 | 2 | 2010 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #26 | 1,760 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 2015 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #39 | 1,677 | 0 | 2 | 2011 | 18–23 | 43.9% | #48 | 1,705 | 0 | 3 |
| 28 | 2016 | 25–17 | 59.5% | #38 | 1,782 | 0 | 3 | 2012 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #26 | 1,658 | 0 | 4 |
| 29 | 2017 | 10–19 | 34.5% | #77 | 1,618 | 0 | 3 | 2013 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #53 | 1,688 | 0 | 4 |
| 30 | 2018 | 9–15 | 37.5% | #99 | 1,588 | 0 | 3 | 2014 | 12–13 | 48.0% | #91 | 1,670 | 0 | 4 |
| 31 | 2019 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #118 | 1,627 | 0 | 3 | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #962 | 1,648 | 0 | 4 |
| 32 | 2020 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #144 | 1,579 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2021 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #274 | 1,514 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |