H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:30 UTC
Heather Watson vs Kai-Chen Chang H2H: 1-0
Heather Watson holds a 1–0 lead over Kai-Chen Chang in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Heather Watson leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Heather Watson won the 2012 Osaka final 7-5 5-7 7-6(4).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
GBR
Age 34
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
TPE
Right-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 14, 2012* | Osaka | WTA 250 | F | Hard | Heather Watson | 7-5 5-7 7-6(4) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heather Watson | #470 | #38 | 1,386 | 1,755 | 144 | 195 | 42.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| 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.
| Heather Watson | Kai-Chen Chang | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2010 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #176 | 1,472 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #94 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #92 | 1,537 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 9–15 | 37.5% | #117 | 1,564 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 17–16 | 51.5% | #49 | 1,690 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #148 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #121 | 1,550 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #86 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 9–17 | 34.6% | #49 | 1,555 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #621 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 18–19 | 48.6% | #55 | 1,614 | 0 | 2 | 2015 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #134 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #76 | 1,584 | 0 | 3 | 2016 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #131 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 |
| 2017 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #73 | 1,626 | 0 | 3 | 2017 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #219 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 |
| 2018 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #91 | 1,584 | 0 | 3 | 2018 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #401 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 |
| 2019 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #103 | 1,622 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2020 | 9–8 | 52.9% | #58 | 1,663 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2021 | 7–16 | 30.4% | #72 | 1,590 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2022 | 9–12 | 42.9% | #139 | 1,569 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2023 | 8–7 | 53.3% | #137 | 1,598 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2024 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #162 | 1,570 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2025 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #269 | 1,545 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2026 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #470 | 1,592 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |