H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 04:32 UTC
Katerina Siniakova vs Shuai Zhang H2H: 2-1
Katerina Siniakova holds a 2–1 lead over Shuai Zhang in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while Katerina Siniakova leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Shuai Zhang won the 2022 Cleveland third round 6-2 6-1.
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 30
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
CHN
Right-Handed
177 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 24, 2022* | Cleveland | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Shuai Zhang | 6-2 6-1 | Katerina Siniakova | Match data |
| May 17, 2017* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Katerina Siniakova | 5-7 6-3 7-6(6) | Shuai Zhang | Match data |
| Sep 17, 2016* | Japan Women's Open | WTA 250 | SF | Hard | Katerina Siniakova | 6-3 6-0 | Shuai Zhang | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Katerina Siniakova | #34 | #27 | 1,718 | 1,894 | 227 | 241 | 48.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Shuai Zhang | #54 | #22 | 1,905 | 1,856 | 225 | 288 | 43.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
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.
| Katerina Siniakova | Shuai Zhang | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2013 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #171 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #203 | 1,495 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #84 | 1,520 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #149 | 1,464 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 13–20 | 39.4% | #102 | 1,523 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 0–6 | 0.0% | #235 | 1,412 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 18–18 | 50.0% | #52 | 1,766 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #154 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 |
| 2017 | 23–23 | 50.0% | #49 | 1,696 | 0 | 2 | 2010 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #90 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |
| 2018 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #31 | 1,777 | 0 | 2 | 2011 | 8–22 | 26.7% | #126 | 1,443 | 0 | 0 |
| 2019 | 20–27 | 42.6% | #58 | 1,675 | 0 | 2 | 2012 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #127 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 2020 | 6–13 | 31.6% | #59 | 1,702 | 0 | 2 | 2013 | 9–4 | 69.2% | #52 | 1,599 | 0 | 1 |
| 2021 | 22–17 | 56.4% | #49 | 1,802 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 18–24 | 42.9% | #61 | 1,602 | 0 | 1 |
| 2022 | 17–19 | 47.2% | #49 | 1,763 | 0 | 3 | 2015 | 4–12 | 25.0% | #139 | 1,519 | 0 | 1 |
| 2023 | 23–17 | 57.5% | #45 | 1,828 | 0 | 5 | 2016 | 22–19 | 53.7% | #23 | 1,722 | 0 | 1 |
| 2024 | 26–25 | 51.0% | #45 | 1,809 | 0 | 5 | 2017 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #36 | 1,762 | 0 | 2 |
| 2025 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #48 | 1,884 | 0 | 5 | 2018 | 28–27 | 50.9% | #40 | 1,726 | 0 | 2 |
| 2026 | 12–13 | 48.0% | #34 | 1,833 | 0 | 5 | 2019 | 18–23 | 43.9% | #40 | 1,680 | 0 | 2 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2020 | 12–10 | 54.5% | #35 | 1,731 | 0 | 2 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2021 | 15–24 | 38.5% | #60 | 1,632 | 0 | 2 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 34–26 | 56.7% | #25 | 1,732 | 0 | 3 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 4–18 | 18.2% | #245 | 1,525 | 0 | 3 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2024 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #205 | 1,576 | 0 | 3 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2025 | 10–7 | 58.8% | #81 | 1,731 | 0 | 3 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2026 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #54 | 1,714 | 0 | 3 |