H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Vania King vs Brenda Schultz-Mccarthy H2H: 1-0
Vania King holds a 1–0 lead over Brenda Schultz-Mccarthy in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Vania King leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Vania King won the 2007 Birmingham second round 7-6(7) 7-6(7).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
USA
Age 37
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
NED
Age 55
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 13, 2007* | Birmingham | WTA 500 | R64 | Grass | Vania King | 7-6(7) 7-6(7) | Brenda Schultz-Mccarthy | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vania King | #824 | #50 | 1,225 | 1,760 | 128 | 160 | 44.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Brenda Schultz-Mccarthy | #919 | #9 | 1,672 | 2,025 | 295 | 220 | 57.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 |
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 | Vania King | Brenda Schultz-Mccarthy | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1986 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,490 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #164 | 1,520 | 0 | 0 | 1987 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #149 | 1,515 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2006 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #60 | 1,661 | 0 | 1 | 1988 | 21–18 | 53.8% | #40 | 1,689 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2007 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #109 | 1,608 | 0 | 1 | 1989 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #83 | 1,603 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2008 | 7–19 | 26.9% | #128 | 1,512 | 0 | 1 | 1990 | 18–17 | 51.4% | #43 | 1,677 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2009 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #80 | 1,588 | 0 | 1 | 1991 | 24–19 | 55.8% | #30 | 1,799 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2010 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #86 | 1,595 | 0 | 1 | 1992 | 30–20 | 60.0% | #33 | 1,818 | 0 | 2 |
| 22 | 2011 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #76 | 1,689 | 0 | 1 | 1993 | 26–20 | 56.5% | #40 | 1,789 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 2012 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #69 | 1,614 | 0 | 1 | 1994 | 44–21 | 67.7% | #15 | 1,885 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 2013 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #85 | 1,630 | 0 | 1 | 1995 | 37–15 | 71.2% | #13 | 1,970 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2014 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #111 | 1,641 | 0 | 1 | 1996 | 35–18 | 66.0% | #12 | 1,908 | 0 | 6 |
| 26 | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #410 | 1,627 | 0 | 1 | 1997 | 34–25 | 57.6% | #15 | 1,855 | 0 | 7 |
| 27 | 2016 | 13–11 | 54.2% | #78 | 1,643 | 0 | 1 | 1998 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #188 | 1,673 | 0 | 7 |
| 28 | 2017 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #492 | 1,590 | 0 | 1 | 1999 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #893 | 1,651 | 0 | 7 |
| 29 | 2018 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #356 | 1,559 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #299 | 1,642 | 0 | 7 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #190 | 1,614 | 0 | 7 |
| 37 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #391 | 1,592 | 0 | 7 |