H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 04:30 UTC
Bethanie Mattek-Sands vs Shuai Peng H2H: 1-2
Shuai Peng holds a 2–1 lead over Bethanie Mattek-Sands in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while Shuai Peng leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Shuai Peng won the 2011 Dubai second round 6-3 2-6 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.
USA
Age 41
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H
1
–
2
3 main draw meetings
CHN
Age 40
Right-Handed
177 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 16, 2011* | Dubai | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Shuai Peng | 6-3 2-6 6-3 | Bethanie Mattek-Sands | Match data |
| Jan 15, 2011* | Hobart | WTA 250 | SF | Hard | Bethanie Mattek-Sands | 4-6 6-1 6-1 | Shuai Peng | Match data |
| May 11, 2006* | Prague | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Shuai Peng | 6-2 6-3 | Bethanie Mattek-Sands | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bethanie Mattek-Sands | #1,356 | #30 | 1,643 | 1,777 | 132 | 172 | 43.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Shuai Peng | #820 | #14 | 2,825 | 1,890 | 300 | 258 | 53.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
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 | Bethanie Mattek-Sands | Shuai Peng | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #518 | 1,493 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 2001 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #343 | 1,471 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #366 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2002 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #214 | 1,470 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #221 | 1,455 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2003 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #158 | 1,428 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #80 | 1,516 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2004 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #172 | 1,447 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #36 | 1,678 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2005 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #123 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 18–17 | 51.4% | #55 | 1,727 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2006 | 9–12 | 42.9% | #126 | 1,572 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #45 | 1,737 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2007 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #114 | 1,590 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 24–22 | 52.2% | #40 | 1,706 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2008 | 19–14 | 57.6% | #39 | 1,700 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 23–22 | 51.1% | #46 | 1,770 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2009 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #153 | 1,622 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 15–13 | 53.6% | #72 | 1,742 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2010 | 14–13 | 51.9% | #58 | 1,702 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 48–23 | 67.6% | #17 | 1,817 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2011 | 18–14 | 56.2% | #55 | 1,707 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 21–22 | 48.8% | #40 | 1,699 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2012 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #169 | 1,666 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 18–18 | 50.0% | #42 | 1,657 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2013 | 16–15 | 51.6% | #48 | 1,692 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 28–22 | 56.0% | #21 | 1,743 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2014 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,611 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #137 | 1,698 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2015 | 14–14 | 50.0% | #60 | 1,681 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 8–10 | 44.4% | #84 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 |
| 31 | 2016 | 5–15 | 25.0% | #178 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #27 | 1,815 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | 2017 | 7–7 | 50.0% | #123 | 1,672 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #125 | 1,741 | 0 | 2 |
| 33 | 2018 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #350 | 1,600 | 0 | 0 | 2019 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #109 | 1,679 | 0 | 2 |
| 34 | 2019 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #370 | 1,583 | 0 | 0 | 2020 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #117 | 1,636 | 0 | 2 |
| 35 | 2020 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #338 | 1,605 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2021 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #368 | 1,597 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2023 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1360 | 1,544 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |