H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Kai-Chen Chang vs Maria Kirilenko H2H: 1-0
Kai-Chen Chang holds a 1–0 lead over Maria Kirilenko 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 fourth round 6-4 0-0 RET.
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
RUS
Age 39
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 15, 2010* | Osaka | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Kai-Chen Chang | 6-4 0-0 (ret.) | Maria Kirilenko | 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 |
| Maria Kirilenko | #947 | #10 | 3,471 | 1,910 | 282 | 228 | 55.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 |
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 | Maria Kirilenko | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2002 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #373 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 9–15 | 37.5% | #117 | 1,564 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #124 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #148 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 8–9 | 47.1% | #107 | 1,575 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #86 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 29–21 | 58.0% | #25 | 1,741 | 0 | 1 |
| 2013 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #621 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 23–25 | 47.9% | #30 | 1,656 | 0 | 1 |
| 2015 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #134 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 28–26 | 51.9% | #25 | 1,739 | 0 | 2 |
| 2016 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #131 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 34–22 | 60.7% | #29 | 1,722 | 0 | 5 |
| 2017 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #219 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 21–24 | 46.7% | #62 | 1,719 | 0 | 5 |
| 2018 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #401 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 37–23 | 61.7% | #20 | 1,827 | 0 | 5 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 29–23 | 55.8% | #28 | 1,816 | 0 | 5 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #14 | 1,775 | 0 | 5 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 34–18 | 65.4% | #19 | 1,786 | 0 | 6 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #187 | 1,698 | 0 | 6 |