H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 22:32 UTC
Karolina Pliskova vs Kai-Chen Chang H2H: 1-0
Karolina Pliskova holds a 1–0 lead over Kai-Chen Chang in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Karolina Pliskova leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Karolina Pliskova won the 2012 Kuala Lumpur third round 6-3 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.
CZE
Age 34
Right-Handed
186 cm / 6'1"
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 1, 2012* | Kuala Lumpur | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Karolina Pliskova | 6-3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Karolina Pliskova | #64 | #1 | 6,940 | 2,041 | 421 | 241 | 63.6% | 0 | 3 | 0 | 9 | 5 | 17 |
| 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.
| Karolina Pliskova | Kai-Chen Chang | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #736 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #94 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 |
| 2008 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #465 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 9–15 | 37.5% | #117 | 1,564 | 0 | 0 |
| 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #221 | 1,521 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #148 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #212 | 1,504 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #86 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #145 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #621 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #118 | 1,444 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #134 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 11–15 | 42.3% | #71 | 1,514 | 0 | 1 | 2016 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #131 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 44–24 | 64.7% | #23 | 1,799 | 0 | 3 | 2017 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #219 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 50–25 | 66.7% | #11 | 1,813 | 0 | 4 | 2018 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #401 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 38–19 | 66.7% | #6 | 1,901 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2017 | 52–18 | 74.3% | #4 | 1,930 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2018 | 46–21 | 68.7% | #8 | 1,916 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2019 | 51–16 | 76.1% | #2 | 1,975 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2020 | 14–8 | 63.6% | #6 | 1,914 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2021 | 35–18 | 66.0% | #4 | 1,972 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2022 | 21–19 | 52.5% | #31 | 1,834 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2023 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #38 | 1,759 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2024 | 20–17 | 54.1% | #41 | 1,777 | 0 | 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2026 | 19–8 | 70.4% | #64 | 1,879 | 0 | 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |