H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 22:30 UTC
Christina Mchale vs Kai-Chen Chang H2H: 1-1
Christina Mchale and Kai-Chen Chang are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Kai-Chen Chang won the 2012 Osaka third round 6-3 7-6(5).
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 34
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
TPE
Right-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 11, 2012* | Osaka | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Kai-Chen Chang | 6-3 7-6(5) | Christina Mchale | Match data |
| Jul 29, 2010* | Stanford | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Christina Mchale | 3-6 6-0 6-2 | Kai-Chen Chang | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Christina Mchale | #319 | #24 | 1,935 | 1,803 | 166 | 207 | 44.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Kai-Chen Chang | #1,233 | #82 | 808 | 1,647 | 32 | 59 | 35.2% | 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.
| Christina Mchale | Kai-Chen Chang | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2009 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #231 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #94 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 8–9 | 47.1% | #109 | 1,556 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 9–15 | 37.5% | #117 | 1,564 | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #43 | 1,716 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #148 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #33 | 1,676 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #86 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 13–18 | 41.9% | #66 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #621 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #52 | 1,647 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #134 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 18–21 | 46.2% | #63 | 1,635 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #131 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 24–21 | 53.3% | #45 | 1,698 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #219 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 |
| 2017 | 19–26 | 42.2% | #64 | 1,690 | 0 | 1 | 2018 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #401 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 |
| 2018 | 8–17 | 32.0% | #151 | 1,568 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2019 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #88 | 1,652 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2020 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #81 | 1,675 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2021 | 2–16 | 11.1% | #159 | 1,524 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2022 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #319 | 1,452 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |