H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Kai-Chen Chang vs Marina Erakovic H2H: 0-1
Marina Erakovic holds a 1–0 lead over Kai-Chen Chang in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Marina Erakovic leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Marina Erakovic won the 2011 Wimbledon first round 6-4 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.
TPE
Right-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
NZL
Age 38
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 22, 2011* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R128 | Grass | Marina Erakovic | 6-4 6-2 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kai-Chen Chang | #1,233 | #82 | 808 | 1,647 | 32 | 59 | 35.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Marina Erakovic | #827 | #39 | 1,392 | 1,701 | 105 | 131 | 44.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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 | Marina Erakovic | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #213 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 9–15 | 37.5% | #117 | 1,564 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #153 | 1,457 | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #148 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #66 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #86 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 4–7 | 36.4% | #227 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #621 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #333 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #134 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #61 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #131 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 19–20 | 48.7% | #66 | 1,600 | 0 | 0 |
| 2017 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #219 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #46 | 1,673 | 0 | 1 |
| 2018 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #401 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 12–20 | 37.5% | #76 | 1,609 | 0 | 1 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #135 | 1,543 | 0 | 1 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2016 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #106 | 1,625 | 0 | 1 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 1–9 | 10.0% | #197 | 1,551 | 0 | 1 |