H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Lucie Safarova vs Kai-Chen Chang H2H: 1-0
Lucie Safarova holds a 1–0 lead over Kai-Chen Chang in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Lucie Safarova leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Lucie Safarova won the 2010 Tokyo second round 2-6 6-1 6-3.
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 39
Left-Handed
177 cm / 5'10"
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 29, 2010* | Tokyo | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Lucie Safarova | 2-6 6-1 6-3 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lucie Safarova | #1,269 | #5 | 4,055 | 1,929 | 351 | 270 | 56.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 7 |
| 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.
| Lucie Safarova | Kai-Chen Chang | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2005 | 15–9 | 62.5% | #47 | 1,665 | 0 | 2 | 2009 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #94 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 |
| 2006 | 21–21 | 50.0% | #42 | 1,625 | 0 | 3 | 2010 | 9–15 | 37.5% | #117 | 1,564 | 0 | 0 |
| 2007 | 28–16 | 63.6% | #23 | 1,778 | 0 | 3 | 2011 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #148 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 |
| 2008 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #63 | 1,640 | 0 | 4 | 2012 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #86 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 |
| 2009 | 32–23 | 58.2% | #41 | 1,768 | 0 | 4 | 2013 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #621 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 27–23 | 54.0% | #33 | 1,722 | 0 | 4 | 2015 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #134 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 | 34–23 | 59.6% | #25 | 1,797 | 0 | 4 | 2016 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #131 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 27–22 | 55.1% | #17 | 1,771 | 0 | 4 | 2017 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #219 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #29 | 1,797 | 0 | 5 | 2018 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #401 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 36–23 | 61.0% | #16 | 1,858 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2015 | 31–21 | 59.6% | #9 | 1,829 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2016 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #62 | 1,696 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2017 | 35–19 | 64.8% | #30 | 1,791 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2018 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #105 | 1,754 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |