H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:30 UTC
Saisai Zheng vs Zarina Diyas H2H: 1-0
Saisai Zheng holds a 1–0 lead over Zarina Diyas in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Saisai Zheng leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Saisai Zheng won the 2015 Shenzhen quarterfinal 3-6 7-6(2) 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
–
0
1 main draw meetings
KAZ
Age 32
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 10, 2015* | Shenzhen | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Saisai Zheng | 3-6 7-6(2) 6-2 | Zarina Diyas | 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 |
| Zarina Diyas | #437 | #31 | 1,495 | 1,751 | 99 | 127 | 43.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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 | Zarina Diyas | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2009 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #242 | 1,527 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #138 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #172 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #145 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #227 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #100 | 1,552 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #264 | 1,476 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 9–22 | 29.0% | #72 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #163 | 1,477 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #85 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 20–14 | 58.8% | #33 | 1,683 | 0 | 0 |
| 2017 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #93 | 1,613 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 20–27 | 42.6% | #52 | 1,576 | 0 | 0 |
| 2018 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #38 | 1,669 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #150 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 |
| 2019 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #42 | 1,749 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | 7–4 | 63.6% | #66 | 1,667 | 0 | 1 |
| 2020 | 6–4 | 60.0% | #41 | 1,767 | 0 | 1 | 2018 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #89 | 1,718 | 0 | 1 |
| 2021 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #79 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 | 2019 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #77 | 1,697 | 0 | 1 |
| 2024 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #692 | 1,550 | 0 | 1 | 2020 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #80 | 1,655 | 0 | 1 |
| 2025 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #692 | 1,493 | 0 | 1 | 2021 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #102 | 1,688 | 0 | 1 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1031 | 1,680 | 0 | 1 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2024 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #382 | 1,632 | 0 | 1 |