H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Vania King vs Meghann Shaughnessy H2H: 2-2
Vania King and Meghann Shaughnessy are tied 2–2 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, they are tied 2–2 on hard courts. Most recently, Vania King won the 2008 Miami first round 3-6 6-4 6-1.
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
2
–
2
4 main draw meetings
USA
Age 47
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 25, 2008* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R128 | Hard | Vania King | 3-6 6-4 6-1 | Meghann Shaughnessy | Match data |
| Aug 29, 2007* | US Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Meghann Shaughnessy | 6-3 5-7 6-4 | Vania King | Match data |
| Aug 8, 2007* | Los Angeles | WTA 500 | R64 | Hard | Meghann Shaughnessy | 6-2 6-4 | Vania King | Match data |
| Oct 14, 2006* | Bangkok | WTA 500 | SF | Hard | Vania King | 6-1 6-4 | Meghann Shaughnessy | 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 |
| Meghann Shaughnessy | #1,104 | #11 | 1,949 | 1,888 | 233 | 233 | 50.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
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 | Meghann Shaughnessy | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #164 | 1,520 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2006 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #60 | 1,661 | 0 | 1 | 1996 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #165 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2007 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #109 | 1,608 | 0 | 1 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #198 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2008 | 7–19 | 26.9% | #128 | 1,512 | 0 | 1 | 1998 | 8–9 | 47.1% | #69 | 1,544 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2009 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #80 | 1,588 | 0 | 1 | 1999 | 10–22 | 31.2% | #99 | 1,439 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2010 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #86 | 1,595 | 0 | 1 | 2000 | 23–20 | 53.5% | #38 | 1,652 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2011 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #76 | 1,689 | 0 | 1 | 2001 | 45–25 | 64.3% | #12 | 1,825 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2012 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #69 | 1,614 | 0 | 1 | 2002 | 29–27 | 51.8% | #30 | 1,716 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 2013 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #85 | 1,630 | 0 | 1 | 2003 | 32–23 | 58.2% | #17 | 1,725 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2014 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #111 | 1,641 | 0 | 1 | 2004 | 20–22 | 47.6% | #40 | 1,663 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #410 | 1,627 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 17–25 | 40.5% | #66 | 1,563 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 2016 | 13–11 | 54.2% | #78 | 1,643 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 27–20 | 57.4% | #37 | 1,709 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2017 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #492 | 1,590 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 18–22 | 45.0% | #52 | 1,666 | 0 | 6 |
| 29 | 2018 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #356 | 1,559 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #836 | 1,579 | 0 | 6 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #590 | 1,533 | 0 | 6 |