H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 22:30 UTC
Saisai Zheng vs Johanna Konta H2H: 1-2
Johanna Konta holds a 2–1 lead over Saisai Zheng in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Johanna Konta leads 2–0 on hard courts, while Saisai Zheng leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Johanna Konta won the 2016 Stanford quarterfinal 6-2 4-6 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.
CHN
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
1
–
2
3 main draw meetings
GBR
Age 35
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 23, 2016* | Stanford | WTA 500 | QF | Hard | Johanna Konta | 6-2 4-6 6-3 | Saisai Zheng | Match data |
| Jun 10, 2016* | Nottingham | WTA 250 | R16 | Grass | Saisai Zheng | 6-4 7-5 | Johanna Konta | Match data |
| Jan 21, 2016* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Johanna Konta | 6-2 6-3 | 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 |
| Johanna Konta | #113 | #4 | 5,110 | 1,990 | 174 | 120 | 59.2% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
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 | Johanna Konta | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2011 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #308 | 1,494 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #138 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #156 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #145 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #114 | 1,505 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #100 | 1,552 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 2–8 | 20.0% | #148 | 1,459 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 9–22 | 29.0% | #72 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 13–8 | 61.9% | #48 | 1,694 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #85 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 42–22 | 65.6% | #10 | 1,854 | 0 | 1 |
| 2017 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #93 | 1,613 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 36–17 | 67.9% | #9 | 1,836 | 0 | 3 |
| 2018 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #38 | 1,669 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #37 | 1,794 | 0 | 3 |
| 2019 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #42 | 1,749 | 0 | 1 | 2019 | 33–15 | 68.8% | #12 | 1,925 | 0 | 3 |
| 2020 | 6–4 | 60.0% | #41 | 1,767 | 0 | 1 | 2020 | 8–9 | 47.1% | #14 | 1,825 | 0 | 3 |
| 2021 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #79 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 | 2021 | 10–9 | 52.6% | #113 | 1,807 | 0 | 4 |
| 2024 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #692 | 1,550 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2025 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #692 | 1,493 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |