H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Jill Craybas vs Chanda Rubin H2H: 1-2
Chanda Rubin holds a 2–1 lead over Jill Craybas in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Chanda Rubin leads 2–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Jill Craybas won the 2006 Stanford third round 6-2 6-3.
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 52
Right-Handed
160 cm / 5'3"
H2H
1
–
2
3 main draw meetings
USA
Age 50
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 27, 2006* | Stanford | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Jill Craybas | 6-2 6-3 | Chanda Rubin | Match data |
| Feb 27, 2003* | Scottsdale | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Chanda Rubin | 6-3 6-1 | Jill Craybas | Match data |
| Aug 28, 2002* | US Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Chanda Rubin | 6-1 6-3 | Jill Craybas | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jill Craybas | #336 | #39 | 974 | 1,695 | 161 | 256 | 38.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Chanda Rubin | #1,122 | #6 | 2,554 | 2,047 | 343 | 231 | 59.8% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 7 |
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 | Jill Craybas | Chanda Rubin | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1993 | 15–17 | 46.9% | #70 | 1,653 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1994 | 28–17 | 62.2% | #23 | 1,804 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 38–19 | 66.7% | #15 | 1,945 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1996 | 20–9 | 69.0% | #17 | 1,989 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1996 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,488 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 23–20 | 53.5% | #32 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1998 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #35 | 1,800 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 1998 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #154 | 1,473 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 33–20 | 62.3% | #22 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 1999 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #175 | 1,445 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 42–22 | 65.6% | #13 | 1,910 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #145 | 1,449 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #52 | 1,806 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 2001 | 8–17 | 32.0% | #98 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 29–11 | 72.5% | #13 | 1,958 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | 2002 | 19–15 | 55.9% | #57 | 1,652 | 0 | 1 | 2003 | 43–20 | 68.3% | #9 | 1,917 | 0 | 7 |
| 28 | 2003 | 16–22 | 42.1% | #99 | 1,568 | 0 | 1 | 2004 | 16–10 | 61.5% | #52 | 1,860 | 0 | 7 |
| 29 | 2004 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #59 | 1,499 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #545 | 1,823 | 0 | 7 |
| 30 | 2005 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #48 | 1,614 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #486 | 1,719 | 0 | 7 |
| 31 | 2006 | 18–25 | 41.9% | #70 | 1,569 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2007 | 12–27 | 30.8% | #79 | 1,472 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2008 | 22–25 | 46.8% | #64 | 1,575 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2009 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #76 | 1,592 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2010 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #98 | 1,546 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2011 | 6–20 | 23.1% | #150 | 1,442 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 2012 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #189 | 1,449 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2013 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #336 | 1,451 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |