H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 04:32 UTC
Shuai Zhang vs Su-Wei Hsieh H2H: 2-2
Shuai Zhang and Su-Wei Hsieh are tied 2–2 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Su-Wei Hsieh leads 2–1 on hard courts, while Shuai Zhang leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Su-Wei Hsieh won the 2014 Tianjin fourth round 3-6 6-3 7-6(5).
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
2
–
2
4 main draw meetings
TPE
Age 40
Right-Handed
169 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 10, 2014* | Tianjin | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Su-Wei Hsieh | 3-6 6-3 7-6(5) | Shuai Zhang | Match data |
| Apr 2, 2014* | Charleston | WTA 500 | R64 | Clay | Shuai Zhang | 3-6 7-6(5) 7-6(0) | Su-Wei Hsieh | Match data |
| Sep 20, 2013* | Guangzhou | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Shuai Zhang | 6-2 6-2 | Su-Wei Hsieh | Match data |
| Mar 1, 2013* | Kuala Lumpur | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Su-Wei Hsieh | 6-2 6-2 | 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 |
| 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.
| Shuai Zhang | Su-Wei Hsieh | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2001 | 5–2 | 71.4% | #164 | 1,549 | 0 | 0 |
| 2007 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #149 | 1,464 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #267 | 1,541 | 0 | 0 |
| 2008 | 0–6 | 0.0% | #235 | 1,412 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #142 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 2009 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #154 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #129 | 1,462 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #90 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #157 | 1,419 | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 | 8–22 | 26.7% | #126 | 1,443 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #81 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #127 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #314 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 9–4 | 69.2% | #52 | 1,599 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #362 | 1,455 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 18–24 | 42.9% | #61 | 1,602 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #172 | 1,460 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 4–12 | 25.0% | #139 | 1,519 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 22–13 | 62.9% | #25 | 1,689 | 0 | 2 |
| 2016 | 22–19 | 53.7% | #23 | 1,722 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 13–25 | 34.2% | #86 | 1,558 | 0 | 2 |
| 2017 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #36 | 1,762 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #141 | 1,545 | 0 | 2 |
| 2018 | 28–27 | 50.9% | #40 | 1,726 | 0 | 2 | 2015 | 6–5 | 54.5% | #93 | 1,583 | 0 | 2 |
| 2019 | 18–23 | 43.9% | #40 | 1,680 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 12–12 | 50.0% | #87 | 1,588 | 0 | 2 |
| 2020 | 12–10 | 54.5% | #35 | 1,731 | 0 | 2 | 2017 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #82 | 1,600 | 0 | 2 |
| 2021 | 15–24 | 38.5% | #60 | 1,632 | 0 | 2 | 2018 | 30–16 | 65.2% | #28 | 1,768 | 0 | 3 |
| 2022 | 34–26 | 56.7% | #25 | 1,732 | 0 | 3 | 2019 | 30–23 | 56.6% | #32 | 1,777 | 0 | 3 |
| 2023 | 4–18 | 18.2% | #245 | 1,525 | 0 | 3 | 2020 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #67 | 1,703 | 0 | 3 |
| 2024 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #205 | 1,576 | 0 | 3 | 2021 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #108 | 1,686 | 0 | 3 |
| 2025 | 10–7 | 58.8% | #81 | 1,731 | 0 | 3 | 2023 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #713 | 1,658 | 0 | 3 |
| 2026 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #54 | 1,714 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |