H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 04:30 UTC
Saisai Zheng vs Ashleigh Barty H2H: 0-3
Ashleigh Barty holds a 3–0 lead over Saisai Zheng in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Ashleigh Barty leads 2–0 on hard courts and 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Ashleigh Barty won the 2019 Beijing fourth round 6-3 6-7(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
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
0
–
3
3 main draw meetings
AUS
Age 30
Right-Handed
166 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 2, 2019 | Beijing | WTA 1000 | R16 | Hard | Ashleigh Barty | 6-3 6-7(5) 6-2 | Saisai Zheng | Match data |
| Jul 3, 2019* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R128 | Grass | Ashleigh Barty | 6-4 6-2 | Saisai Zheng | Match data |
| Sep 26, 2018* | Wuhan | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Ashleigh Barty | 4-6 6-1 6-2 | Saisai Zheng | 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 | 83 | 130 | 39.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Ashleigh Barty | #1 | #1 | 10,185 | 2,199 | 191 | 70 | 73.2% | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 15 |
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 | Ashleigh Barty | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2012 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #175 | 1,469 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #138 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #190 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #145 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #223 | 1,508 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #100 | 1,552 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #272 | 1,593 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 9–22 | 29.0% | #72 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 30–14 | 68.2% | #17 | 1,888 | 0 | 1 |
| 2016 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #85 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 40–18 | 69.0% | #15 | 1,964 | 0 | 3 |
| 2017 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #93 | 1,613 | 0 | 0 | 2019 | 48–12 | 80.0% | #1 | 2,070 | 1 | 7 |
| 2018 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #38 | 1,669 | 0 | 0 | 2020 | 12–3 | 80.0% | #1 | 2,082 | 1 | 8 |
| 2019 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #42 | 1,749 | 0 | 1 | 2021 | 43–7 | 86.0% | #1 | 2,142 | 2 | 13 |
| 2020 | 6–4 | 60.0% | #41 | 1,767 | 0 | 1 | 2022 | 11–0 | 100.0% | #1 | 2,199 | 3 | 15 |
| 2021 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #79 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2024 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #692 | 1,550 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2025 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #692 | 1,493 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |