H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:30 UTC
Saisai Zheng vs Su-Wei Hsieh H2H: 1-1
Saisai Zheng and Su-Wei Hsieh are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Saisai Zheng leads 1–0 on clay, while Su-Wei Hsieh leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Saisai Zheng won the 2015 Strasbourg third round 6-4 0-6 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
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
TPE
Age 40
Right-Handed
169 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 21, 2015* | Strasbourg | WTA 500 | R32 | Clay | Saisai Zheng | 6-4 0-6 6-2 | Su-Wei Hsieh | Match data |
| Oct 3, 2012* | Beijing | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Su-Wei Hsieh | 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 |
| Su-Wei Hsieh | #909 | #23 | 1,960 | 1,874 | 150 | 173 | 46.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
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 | Su-Wei Hsieh | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2001 | 5–2 | 71.4% | #164 | 1,549 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #138 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #267 | 1,541 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #145 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #142 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #100 | 1,552 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #129 | 1,462 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 9–22 | 29.0% | #72 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #157 | 1,419 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #85 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #81 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 2017 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #93 | 1,613 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #314 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 |
| 2018 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #38 | 1,669 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #362 | 1,455 | 0 | 0 |
| 2019 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #42 | 1,749 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #172 | 1,460 | 0 | 0 |
| 2020 | 6–4 | 60.0% | #41 | 1,767 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 22–13 | 62.9% | #25 | 1,689 | 0 | 2 |
| 2021 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #79 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 13–25 | 34.2% | #86 | 1,558 | 0 | 2 |
| 2024 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #692 | 1,550 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #141 | 1,545 | 0 | 2 |
| 2025 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #692 | 1,493 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 6–5 | 54.5% | #93 | 1,583 | 0 | 2 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2016 | 12–12 | 50.0% | #87 | 1,588 | 0 | 2 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #82 | 1,600 | 0 | 2 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2018 | 30–16 | 65.2% | #28 | 1,768 | 0 | 3 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2019 | 30–23 | 56.6% | #32 | 1,777 | 0 | 3 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2020 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #67 | 1,703 | 0 | 3 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2021 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #108 | 1,686 | 0 | 3 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #713 | 1,658 | 0 | 3 |