H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:32 UTC
Saisai Zheng vs Madison Brengle H2H: 0-2
Madison Brengle holds a 2–0 lead over Saisai Zheng in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Madison Brengle leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Madison Brengle won the 2015 US Open first round 6-2 5-7 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
0
–
2
2 main draw meetings
USA
Age 36
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 13, 2017 | Doha | WTA 1000 | Q3 | Hard | Madison Brengle | 6-2 6-1 | Saisai Zheng | Match data |
| Sep 2, 2015* | US Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Madison Brengle | 6-2 5-7 7-5 | Saisai Zheng | Match data |
| Mar 10, 2015* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R128 | Hard | Madison Brengle | 6-3 6-0 | 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 |
| Madison Brengle | #210 | #35 | 1,324 | 1,740 | 94 | 151 | 38.4% | 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.
| Saisai Zheng | Madison Brengle | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2007 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #229 | 1,502 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #138 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #220 | 1,457 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #145 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #165 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #100 | 1,552 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #188 | 1,447 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 9–22 | 29.0% | #72 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #197 | 1,459 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #85 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #191 | 1,444 | 0 | 0 |
| 2017 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #93 | 1,613 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #95 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 2018 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #38 | 1,669 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 25–26 | 49.0% | #40 | 1,627 | 0 | 0 |
| 2019 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #42 | 1,749 | 0 | 1 | 2016 | 16–22 | 42.1% | #73 | 1,602 | 0 | 0 |
| 2020 | 6–4 | 60.0% | #41 | 1,767 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #83 | 1,656 | 0 | 0 |
| 2021 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #79 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 | 2018 | 3–11 | 21.4% | #88 | 1,606 | 0 | 0 |
| 2024 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #692 | 1,550 | 0 | 1 | 2019 | 7–11 | 38.9% | #95 | 1,601 | 0 | 0 |
| 2025 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #692 | 1,493 | 0 | 1 | 2020 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #82 | 1,641 | 0 | 0 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2021 | 6–14 | 30.0% | #59 | 1,645 | 0 | 0 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 12–16 | 42.9% | #57 | 1,637 | 0 | 0 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 6–14 | 30.0% | #151 | 1,586 | 0 | 0 |