H2H data updated: 2026-07-25 23:01 UTC
Saisai Zheng vs Agnieszka Radwanska H2H: 1-0
Saisai Zheng holds a 1–0 lead over Agnieszka Radwanska in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Saisai Zheng leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Saisai Zheng won the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympics second round 6-4 7-5.
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
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
POL
Age 37
Right-Handed
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 8, 2016* | Rio de Janeiro Olympics | Olympics | R64 | Hard | Saisai Zheng | 6-4 7-5 | Agnieszka Radwanska | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saisai Zheng | #692 | #34 | 1,585 | 1,776 | 84 | 132 | 38.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Agnieszka Radwanska | #74 | #2 | 8,530 | 2,103 | 507 | 240 | 67.9% | 0 | 5 | 1 | 8 | 6 | 20 |
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.
| Saisai Zheng | Agnieszka Radwanska | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2011 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #276 | 1,473 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #61 | 1,672 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #138 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #26 | 1,809 | 0 | 1 |
| 2013 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #145 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 52–20 | 72.2% | #10 | 1,914 | 0 | 4 |
| 2014 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #100 | 1,552 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 44–23 | 65.7% | #10 | 1,912 | 0 | 4 |
| 2015 | 9–22 | 29.0% | #72 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 32–18 | 64.0% | #14 | 1,862 | 0 | 4 |
| 2016 | 13–24 | 35.1% | #85 | 1,543 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 46–18 | 71.9% | #8 | 1,980 | 0 | 7 |
| 2017 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #93 | 1,616 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 59–20 | 74.7% | #4 | 1,988 | 0 | 10 |
| 2018 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #38 | 1,670 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 56–20 | 73.7% | #5 | 1,966 | 0 | 13 |
| 2019 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #42 | 1,749 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 43–22 | 66.2% | #6 | 1,875 | 0 | 14 |
| 2020 | 6–4 | 60.0% | #41 | 1,767 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 50–22 | 69.4% | #5 | 1,961 | 0 | 17 |
| 2021 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #79 | 1,685 | 0 | 1 | 2016 | 51–19 | 72.9% | #3 | 1,961 | 0 | 20 |
| 2024 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #692 | 1,548 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | 25–18 | 58.1% | #28 | 1,817 | 0 | 20 |
| 2025 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #692 | 1,492 | 0 | 1 | 2018 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #74 | 1,732 | 0 | 20 |