H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Chanda Rubin vs Meilen Tu H2H: 2-0
Chanda Rubin holds a 2–0 lead over Meilen Tu in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Chanda Rubin leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Chanda Rubin won the 2000 Quebec City semifinal 7-5 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 50
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
USA
Age 48
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 2, 2000* | Quebec City | WTA 500 | SF | Hard | Chanda Rubin | 7-5 6-1 | Meilen Tu | Match data |
| May 9, 2000* | Berlin | WTA 1000 | R32 | Clay | Chanda Rubin | 6-3 6-1 | Meilen Tu | 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 |
| Meilen Tu | #1,136 | #35 | 769 | 1,692 | 103 | 163 | 38.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 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 | Chanda Rubin | Meilen Tu | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | 1990 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #526 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 15 | 1991 | 8–6 | 57.1% | #84 | 1,583 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1992 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #84 | 1,617 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #160 | 1,542 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1993 | 15–17 | 46.9% | #70 | 1,653 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #161 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1994 | 28–17 | 62.2% | #23 | 1,804 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #157 | 1,518 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1995 | 38–19 | 66.7% | #15 | 1,945 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 6–13 | 31.6% | #81 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1996 | 20–9 | 69.0% | #17 | 1,989 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #209 | 1,533 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1997 | 23–20 | 53.5% | #32 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 | 1999 | 3–11 | 21.4% | #103 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1998 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #35 | 1,800 | 0 | 1 | 2000 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #67 | 1,576 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1999 | 33–20 | 62.3% | #22 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 | 2001 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #45 | 1,615 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2000 | 42–22 | 65.6% | #13 | 1,910 | 0 | 3 | 2002 | 16–24 | 40.0% | #73 | 1,561 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2001 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #52 | 1,806 | 0 | 3 | 2003 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #143 | 1,478 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2002 | 29–11 | 72.5% | #13 | 1,958 | 0 | 5 | 2004 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #162 | 1,464 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2003 | 43–20 | 68.3% | #9 | 1,917 | 0 | 7 | 2005 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #120 | 1,474 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2004 | 16–10 | 61.5% | #52 | 1,860 | 0 | 7 | 2006 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #90 | 1,532 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2005 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #545 | 1,823 | 0 | 7 | 2007 | 20–22 | 47.6% | #47 | 1,625 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2006 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #486 | 1,719 | 0 | 7 | 2008 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #630 | 1,546 | 0 | 1 |