H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:30 UTC
Saisai Zheng vs Sabine Lisicki H2H: 0-1
Sabine Lisicki holds a 1–0 lead over Saisai Zheng in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Sabine Lisicki leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Sabine Lisicki won the 2014 Hong Kong quarterfinal 6-4 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
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
GER
Age 36
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 14, 2016 | Cincinnati | WTA 1000 | Q2 | Hard | Saisai Zheng | 6-3 5-2 | Sabine Lisicki | Match data |
| Sep 13, 2014* | Hong Kong | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Sabine Lisicki | 6-4 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 |
| Sabine Lisicki | #502 | #12 | 3,251 | 1,940 | 206 | 172 | 54.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 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 | Sabine Lisicki | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #444 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #138 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #198 | 1,475 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #145 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 16–18 | 47.1% | #57 | 1,606 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #100 | 1,552 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #22 | 1,792 | 0 | 1 |
| 2015 | 9–22 | 29.0% | #72 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #175 | 1,658 | 0 | 1 |
| 2016 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #85 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 35–13 | 72.9% | #15 | 1,872 | 0 | 3 |
| 2017 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #93 | 1,613 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #37 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 |
| 2018 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #38 | 1,669 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 34–19 | 64.2% | #15 | 1,824 | 0 | 3 |
| 2019 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #42 | 1,749 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #26 | 1,798 | 0 | 4 |
| 2020 | 6–4 | 60.0% | #41 | 1,767 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 22–19 | 53.7% | #32 | 1,791 | 0 | 4 |
| 2021 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #79 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 | 2016 | 14–19 | 42.4% | #93 | 1,647 | 0 | 4 |
| 2024 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #692 | 1,550 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #220 | 1,636 | 0 | 4 |
| 2025 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #692 | 1,493 | 0 | 1 | 2018 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #199 | 1,549 | 0 | 4 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2019 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #562 | 1,479 | 0 | 4 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #342 | 1,575 | 0 | 4 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #311 | 1,569 | 0 | 4 |