H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Chanda Rubin vs Fang Li H2H: 2-0
Chanda Rubin holds a 2–0 lead over Fang Li in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Chanda Rubin leads 1–0 on carpet and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Chanda Rubin won the 1998 US Open first round 6-3 6-2.
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 50
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
CHN
Right-Handed
166 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 2, 1998* | US Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Chanda Rubin | 6-3 6-2 | Fang Li | Match data |
| Nov 13, 1997* | Philadelphia | WTA 250 | R32 | Carpet | Chanda Rubin | 7-6 7-6 | Fang Li | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chanda Rubin | #1,122 | #6 | 2,554 | 2,047 | 343 | 231 | 59.8% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 7 |
| Fang Li | #488 | #36 | 723 | 1,705 | 67 | 89 | 42.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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.
| Chanda Rubin | Fang Li | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 1990 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #526 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #119 | 1,547 | 0 | 0 |
| 1991 | 8–6 | 57.1% | #84 | 1,583 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #132 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 |
| 1992 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #84 | 1,617 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #67 | 1,609 | 0 | 0 |
| 1993 | 15–17 | 46.9% | #70 | 1,653 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 9–8 | 52.9% | #93 | 1,613 | 0 | 0 |
| 1994 | 28–17 | 62.2% | #23 | 1,804 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #199 | 1,585 | 0 | 0 |
| 1995 | 38–19 | 66.7% | #15 | 1,945 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #69 | 1,594 | 0 | 0 |
| 1996 | 20–9 | 69.0% | #17 | 1,989 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #40 | 1,676 | 0 | 0 |
| 1997 | 23–20 | 53.5% | #32 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 | 1999 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #86 | 1,585 | 0 | 0 |
| 1998 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #35 | 1,800 | 0 | 1 | 2000 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #503 | 1,541 | 0 | 0 |
| 1999 | 33–20 | 62.3% | #22 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 | 2001 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #488 | 1,500 | 0 | 0 |
| 2000 | 42–22 | 65.6% | #13 | 1,910 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2001 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #52 | 1,806 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2002 | 29–11 | 72.5% | #13 | 1,958 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2003 | 43–20 | 68.3% | #9 | 1,917 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2004 | 16–10 | 61.5% | #52 | 1,860 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2005 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #545 | 1,823 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2006 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #486 | 1,719 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |