H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Sara Errani vs Saisai Zheng H2H: 3-0
Sara Errani holds a 3–0 lead over Saisai Zheng in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Sara Errani leads 3–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Sara Errani won the 2016 Dubai third round 7-5 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.
ITA
Age 39
Right-Handed
164 cm / 5'5"
H2H
3
–
0
3 main draw meetings
CHN
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 17, 2016* | Dubai | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Sara Errani | 7-5 6-3 | Saisai Zheng | Match data |
| Sep 26, 2015* | Guangzhou | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Sara Errani | 6-1 6-0 | Saisai Zheng | Match data |
| Jan 2, 2014* | Shenzhen | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Sara Errani | 6-0 3-6 7-6(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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sara Errani | #461 | #5 | 5,835 | 2,024 | 384 | 299 | 56.2% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 9 |
| Saisai Zheng | #692 | #34 | 1,585 | 1,776 | 83 | 130 | 39.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 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.
| Sara Errani | Saisai Zheng | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2006 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #174 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #276 | 1,473 | 0 | 0 |
| 2007 | 10–7 | 58.8% | #69 | 1,615 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #138 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 |
| 2008 | 29–21 | 58.0% | #42 | 1,747 | 0 | 2 | 2013 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #145 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 |
| 2009 | 25–27 | 48.1% | #47 | 1,656 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #100 | 1,552 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 36–29 | 55.4% | #43 | 1,720 | 0 | 2 | 2015 | 9–22 | 29.0% | #72 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 | 30–26 | 53.6% | #45 | 1,671 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #85 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 53–19 | 73.6% | #6 | 1,901 | 0 | 6 | 2017 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #93 | 1,613 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 46–22 | 67.6% | #7 | 1,894 | 0 | 7 | 2018 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #38 | 1,669 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 35–23 | 60.3% | #14 | 1,773 | 0 | 7 | 2019 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #42 | 1,749 | 0 | 1 |
| 2015 | 46–26 | 63.9% | #20 | 1,752 | 0 | 8 | 2020 | 6–4 | 60.0% | #41 | 1,767 | 0 | 1 |
| 2016 | 18–21 | 46.2% | #49 | 1,625 | 0 | 9 | 2021 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #79 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 |
| 2017 | 17–15 | 53.1% | #144 | 1,650 | 0 | 9 | 2024 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #692 | 1,550 | 0 | 1 |
| 2018 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #112 | 1,765 | 0 | 9 | 2025 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #692 | 1,493 | 0 | 1 |
| 2019 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #198 | 1,567 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2020 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #131 | 1,604 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2021 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #121 | 1,579 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2022 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #109 | 1,597 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2023 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #105 | 1,550 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2024 | 10–13 | 43.5% | #105 | 1,699 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2025 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #461 | 1,594 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |