H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 10:32 UTC
Sorana Cirstea vs Jie Zheng H2H: 0-2
Jie Zheng holds a 2–0 lead over Sorana Cirstea in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Jie Zheng leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Jie Zheng won the 2011 Miami first round 6-3 6-7(5) 6-3.
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 36
Right-Handed
176 cm / 5'9"
H2H
0
–
2
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 22, 2011* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R128 | Hard | Jie Zheng | 6-3 6-7(5) 6-3 | Sorana Cirstea | Match data |
| Mar 10, 2010* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Jie Zheng | 6-3 7-5 | Sorana Cirstea | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sorana Cirstea | #17 | #17 | 2,535 | 2,024 | 373 | 343 | 52.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| 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 | Sorana Cirstea | Jie Zheng | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2006 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #353 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2007 | 8–6 | 57.1% | #108 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2008 | 25–16 | 61.0% | #36 | 1,752 | 0 | 1 | 2002 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #185 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2009 | 21–24 | 46.7% | #45 | 1,691 | 0 | 1 | 2003 | 7–8 | 46.7% | #84 | 1,535 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2010 | 13–23 | 36.1% | #93 | 1,573 | 0 | 1 | 2004 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #79 | 1,551 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2011 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #60 | 1,600 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 24–15 | 61.5% | #44 | 1,705 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2012 | 30–26 | 53.6% | #27 | 1,690 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 25–16 | 61.0% | #33 | 1,778 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 2013 | 33–26 | 55.9% | #22 | 1,710 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #163 | 1,689 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 2014 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #94 | 1,593 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 20–10 | 66.7% | #25 | 1,838 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2015 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #242 | 1,540 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #35 | 1,779 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 2016 | 10–12 | 45.5% | #79 | 1,612 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #26 | 1,760 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 2017 | 28–20 | 58.3% | #37 | 1,727 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 18–23 | 43.9% | #48 | 1,705 | 0 | 3 |
| 28 | 2018 | 13–20 | 39.4% | #84 | 1,621 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #26 | 1,658 | 0 | 4 |
| 29 | 2019 | 21–16 | 56.8% | #74 | 1,650 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #53 | 1,688 | 0 | 4 |
| 30 | 2020 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #71 | 1,663 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 12–13 | 48.0% | #91 | 1,670 | 0 | 4 |
| 31 | 2021 | 25–18 | 58.1% | #39 | 1,755 | 0 | 2 | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #962 | 1,648 | 0 | 4 |
| 32 | 2022 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #45 | 1,693 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2023 | 24–21 | 53.3% | #26 | 1,826 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2024 | 12–16 | 42.9% | #69 | 1,754 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2025 | 28–18 | 60.9% | #43 | 1,870 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2026 | 30–11 | 73.2% | #17 | 1,985 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |