H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:32 UTC
Sorana Cirstea vs Vania King H2H: 2-0
Sorana Cirstea holds a 2–0 lead over Vania King in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Sorana Cirstea leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Sorana Cirstea won the 2012 Stanford third round 7-5 6-4.
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
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
USA
Age 37
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 11, 2018 | Cincinnati | WTA 1000 | Q1 | Hard | Sorana Cirstea | 2-6 6-2 6-3 | Vania King | Match data |
| Jul 12, 2012* | Stanford | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Sorana Cirstea | 7-5 6-4 | Vania King | Match data |
| Apr 16, 2008* | Charleston | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Sorana Cirstea | 6-7(5) 7-5 6-1 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sorana Cirstea | #17 | #17 | 2,535 | 2,024 | 373 | 343 | 52.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| 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.
| Age | Sorana Cirstea | Vania King | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #164 | 1,520 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2007 | 8–6 | 57.1% | #108 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #60 | 1,661 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | 2008 | 25–16 | 61.0% | #36 | 1,752 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #109 | 1,608 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 2009 | 21–24 | 46.7% | #45 | 1,691 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 7–19 | 26.9% | #128 | 1,512 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 2010 | 13–23 | 36.1% | #93 | 1,573 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #80 | 1,588 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2011 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #60 | 1,600 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #86 | 1,595 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2012 | 30–26 | 53.6% | #27 | 1,690 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #76 | 1,689 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2013 | 33–26 | 55.9% | #22 | 1,710 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #69 | 1,614 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2014 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #94 | 1,593 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #85 | 1,630 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2015 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #242 | 1,540 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #111 | 1,641 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2016 | 10–12 | 45.5% | #79 | 1,612 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #410 | 1,627 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2017 | 28–20 | 58.3% | #37 | 1,727 | 0 | 1 | 2016 | 13–11 | 54.2% | #78 | 1,643 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2018 | 13–20 | 39.4% | #84 | 1,621 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #492 | 1,590 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2019 | 21–16 | 56.8% | #74 | 1,650 | 0 | 1 | 2018 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #356 | 1,559 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2020 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #71 | 1,663 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2021 | 25–18 | 58.1% | #39 | 1,755 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |