H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:32 UTC
Lin Zhu vs Zarina Diyas H2H: 1-0
Lin Zhu holds a 1–0 lead over Zarina Diyas in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Lin Zhu leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Lin Zhu won the 2016 Kuala Lumpur fourth round 7-5 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.
CHN
Right-Handed
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
KAZ
Age 32
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 4, 2016* | Kuala Lumpur | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Lin Zhu | 7-5 6-2 | Zarina Diyas | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lin Zhu | #130 | #31 | 1,464 | 1,805 | 92 | 115 | 44.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Zarina Diyas | #437 | #31 | 1,495 | 1,751 | 99 | 127 | 43.8% | 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.
| Lin Zhu | Zarina Diyas | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2014 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #134 | 1,520 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #242 | 1,527 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #176 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #172 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #124 | 1,566 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #227 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 2017 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #113 | 1,581 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #264 | 1,476 | 0 | 0 |
| 2018 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #120 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #163 | 1,477 | 0 | 0 |
| 2019 | 5–14 | 26.3% | #72 | 1,628 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 20–14 | 58.8% | #33 | 1,683 | 0 | 0 |
| 2020 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #91 | 1,605 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 20–27 | 42.6% | #52 | 1,576 | 0 | 0 |
| 2021 | 8–7 | 53.3% | #114 | 1,623 | 0 | 1 | 2016 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #150 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 |
| 2022 | 6–11 | 35.3% | #84 | 1,609 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | 7–4 | 63.6% | #66 | 1,667 | 0 | 1 |
| 2023 | 28–24 | 53.8% | #37 | 1,741 | 0 | 2 | 2018 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #89 | 1,718 | 0 | 1 |
| 2024 | 12–16 | 42.9% | #120 | 1,655 | 0 | 2 | 2019 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #77 | 1,697 | 0 | 1 |
| 2025 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #168 | 1,680 | 0 | 2 | 2020 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #80 | 1,655 | 0 | 1 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2021 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #102 | 1,688 | 0 | 1 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1031 | 1,680 | 0 | 1 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2024 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #382 | 1,632 | 0 | 1 |