H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Petra Martic vs Kai-Chen Chang H2H: 1-1
Petra Martic and Kai-Chen Chang are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Kai-Chen Chang won the 2012 Australian Open 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.
CRO
Age 35
Right-Handed
181 cm / 5'11"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
TPE
Right-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 18, 2012* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Kai-Chen Chang | 6-4 6-2 | Petra Martic | Match data |
| Sep 22, 2011* | Guangzhou | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Petra Martic | 6-4 6-4 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Petra Martic | #349 | #14 | 2,850 | 1,942 | 212 | 214 | 49.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| 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.
| Petra Martic | Kai-Chen Chang | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #330 | 1,480 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #94 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 |
| 2008 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #215 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 9–15 | 37.5% | #117 | 1,564 | 0 | 0 |
| 2009 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #82 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #148 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 5–14 | 26.3% | #142 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #86 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 | 16–14 | 53.3% | #50 | 1,613 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #621 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 18–18 | 50.0% | #59 | 1,690 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #134 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #107 | 1,606 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #131 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #186 | 1,515 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #219 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 0–8 | 0.0% | #148 | 1,435 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #401 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #262 | 1,525 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2017 | 6–4 | 60.0% | #89 | 1,612 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2018 | 26–17 | 60.5% | #32 | 1,795 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2019 | 36–17 | 67.9% | #15 | 1,903 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2020 | 14–11 | 56.0% | #18 | 1,805 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2021 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #54 | 1,658 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2022 | 25–17 | 59.5% | #38 | 1,794 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2023 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #40 | 1,808 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2024 | 9–18 | 33.3% | #122 | 1,649 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2025 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #209 | 1,611 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |