H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Elise Mertens vs Shuai Zhang H2H: 4-1
Elise Mertens holds a 4–1 lead over Shuai Zhang in their WTA head-to-head. Across 5 main-draw meetings, Elise Mertens leads 3–1 on hard courts and 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Elise Mertens won the 2022 Australian Open third round 6-2 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.
BEL
Age 30
Right-Handed
179 cm / 5'10"
H2H
4
–
1
5 main draw meetings
CHN
Right-Handed
177 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 23, 2022* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R32 | Hard | Elise Mertens | 6-2 6-2 | Shuai Zhang | Match data |
| May 1, 2021* | Madrid | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Elise Mertens | 6-3 6-3 | Shuai Zhang | Match data |
| Oct 1, 2018 | Beijing | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Shuai Zhang | 6-1 3-6 6-3 | Elise Mertens | Match data |
| Aug 9, 2018* | Montreal | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Elise Mertens | 6-2 6-7(2) 6-0 | Shuai Zhang | Match data |
| Aug 25, 2017* | New Haven | WTA 500 | QF | Hard | Elise Mertens | (w/o) | Shuai Zhang | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elise Mertens | #24 | #12 | 3,685 | 2,013 | 311 | 199 | 61.0% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8 | 10 |
| Shuai Zhang | #54 | #22 | 1,905 | 1,856 | 225 | 288 | 43.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
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.
| Elise Mertens | Shuai Zhang | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2016 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #125 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #203 | 1,495 | 0 | 0 |
| 2017 | 30–22 | 57.7% | #35 | 1,737 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #149 | 1,464 | 0 | 0 |
| 2018 | 43–19 | 69.4% | #12 | 1,821 | 0 | 4 | 2008 | 0–6 | 0.0% | #235 | 1,412 | 0 | 0 |
| 2019 | 33–24 | 57.9% | #17 | 1,836 | 0 | 5 | 2009 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #154 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 |
| 2020 | 32–13 | 71.1% | #20 | 1,934 | 0 | 5 | 2010 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #90 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |
| 2021 | 33–18 | 64.7% | #21 | 1,856 | 0 | 6 | 2011 | 8–22 | 26.7% | #126 | 1,443 | 0 | 0 |
| 2022 | 28–21 | 57.1% | #29 | 1,795 | 0 | 7 | 2012 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #127 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 2023 | 26–21 | 55.3% | #29 | 1,819 | 0 | 8 | 2013 | 9–4 | 69.2% | #52 | 1,599 | 0 | 1 |
| 2024 | 27–25 | 51.9% | #34 | 1,788 | 0 | 8 | 2014 | 18–24 | 42.9% | #61 | 1,602 | 0 | 1 |
| 2025 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #20 | 1,866 | 0 | 10 | 2015 | 4–12 | 25.0% | #139 | 1,519 | 0 | 1 |
| 2026 | 20–13 | 60.6% | #24 | 1,908 | 0 | 10 | 2016 | 22–19 | 53.7% | #23 | 1,722 | 0 | 1 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #36 | 1,762 | 0 | 2 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2018 | 28–27 | 50.9% | #40 | 1,726 | 0 | 2 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2019 | 18–23 | 43.9% | #40 | 1,680 | 0 | 2 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2020 | 12–10 | 54.5% | #35 | 1,731 | 0 | 2 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2021 | 15–24 | 38.5% | #60 | 1,632 | 0 | 2 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 34–26 | 56.7% | #25 | 1,732 | 0 | 3 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 4–18 | 18.2% | #245 | 1,525 | 0 | 3 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2024 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #205 | 1,576 | 0 | 3 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2025 | 10–7 | 58.8% | #81 | 1,731 | 0 | 3 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2026 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #54 | 1,714 | 0 | 3 |