H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Kai-Chen Chang vs Lilia Osterloh H2H: 1-0
Kai-Chen Chang holds a 1–0 lead over Lilia Osterloh in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Kai-Chen Chang leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Kai-Chen Chang won the 2010 Osaka third round 7-5 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.
TPE
Right-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 48
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 14, 2010* | Osaka | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Kai-Chen Chang | 7-5 6-4 | Lilia Osterloh | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kai-Chen Chang | #1,233 | #82 | 808 | 1,647 | 32 | 59 | 35.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Lilia Osterloh | #1,223 | #41 | 738 | 1,697 | 83 | 138 | 37.6% | 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.
| Kai-Chen Chang | Lilia Osterloh | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2009 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #94 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #195 | 1,518 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 9–15 | 37.5% | #117 | 1,564 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #170 | 1,551 | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #148 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #120 | 1,501 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #86 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 9–13 | 40.9% | #79 | 1,545 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #621 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #43 | 1,595 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #134 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 23–25 | 47.9% | #53 | 1,659 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #131 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #156 | 1,535 | 0 | 0 |
| 2017 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #219 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #180 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 2018 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #401 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #119 | 1,561 | 0 | 0 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #144 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #118 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #91 | 1,543 | 0 | 0 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #230 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #136 | 1,510 | 0 | 0 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #237 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 |