H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 22:32 UTC
Shuai Zhang vs Maria Kirilenko H2H: 0-2
Maria Kirilenko holds a 2–0 lead over Shuai Zhang in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Maria Kirilenko leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Maria Kirilenko won the 2011 Cincinnati second round 7-6(2) 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
177 cm / 5'10"
H2H
0
–
2
2 main draw meetings
RUS
Age 39
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 17, 2011* | Cincinnati | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Maria Kirilenko | 7-6(2) 6-3 | Shuai Zhang | Match data |
| Oct 6, 2010* | Beijing | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Maria Kirilenko | 6-1 6-0 | Shuai Zhang | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shuai Zhang | #54 | #22 | 1,905 | 1,856 | 225 | 288 | 43.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Maria Kirilenko | #947 | #10 | 3,471 | 1,910 | 282 | 228 | 55.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 |
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.
| Shuai Zhang | Maria Kirilenko | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2006 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #203 | 1,495 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #373 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 |
| 2007 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #149 | 1,464 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #124 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 |
| 2008 | 0–6 | 0.0% | #235 | 1,412 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 8–9 | 47.1% | #107 | 1,575 | 0 | 0 |
| 2009 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #154 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 29–21 | 58.0% | #25 | 1,741 | 0 | 1 |
| 2010 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #90 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 23–25 | 47.9% | #30 | 1,656 | 0 | 1 |
| 2011 | 8–22 | 26.7% | #126 | 1,443 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 28–26 | 51.9% | #25 | 1,739 | 0 | 2 |
| 2012 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #127 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 34–22 | 60.7% | #29 | 1,722 | 0 | 5 |
| 2013 | 9–4 | 69.2% | #52 | 1,599 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 21–24 | 46.7% | #62 | 1,719 | 0 | 5 |
| 2014 | 18–24 | 42.9% | #61 | 1,602 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 37–23 | 61.7% | #20 | 1,827 | 0 | 5 |
| 2015 | 4–12 | 25.0% | #139 | 1,519 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 29–23 | 55.8% | #28 | 1,816 | 0 | 5 |
| 2016 | 22–19 | 53.7% | #23 | 1,722 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #14 | 1,775 | 0 | 5 |
| 2017 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #36 | 1,762 | 0 | 2 | 2013 | 34–18 | 65.4% | #19 | 1,786 | 0 | 6 |
| 2018 | 28–27 | 50.9% | #40 | 1,726 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #187 | 1,698 | 0 | 6 |
| 2019 | 18–23 | 43.9% | #40 | 1,680 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2020 | 12–10 | 54.5% | #35 | 1,731 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2021 | 15–24 | 38.5% | #60 | 1,632 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2022 | 34–26 | 56.7% | #25 | 1,732 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2023 | 4–18 | 18.2% | #245 | 1,525 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2024 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #205 | 1,576 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2025 | 10–7 | 58.8% | #81 | 1,731 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2026 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #54 | 1,714 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |