H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 22:32 UTC
Sorana Cirstea vs Kai-Chen Chang H2H: 1-0
Sorana Cirstea holds a 1–0 lead over Kai-Chen Chang in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Sorana Cirstea leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Sorana Cirstea won the 2011 Birmingham second round 6-3 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.
ROU
Age 36
Right-Handed
176 cm / 5'9"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
TPE
Right-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 8, 2011* | Birmingham | WTA 250 | R64 | Grass | Sorana Cirstea | 6-3 6-3 | Kai-Chen Chang | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sorana Cirstea | #17 | #17 | 2,535 | 2,024 | 373 | 343 | 52.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| Kai-Chen Chang | #1,233 | #82 | 808 | 1,647 | 32 | 59 | 35.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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.
| Sorana Cirstea | Kai-Chen Chang | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2006 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #353 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #94 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 |
| 2007 | 8–6 | 57.1% | #108 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 9–15 | 37.5% | #117 | 1,564 | 0 | 0 |
| 2008 | 25–16 | 61.0% | #36 | 1,752 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #148 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 |
| 2009 | 21–24 | 46.7% | #45 | 1,691 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #86 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 13–23 | 36.1% | #93 | 1,573 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #621 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #60 | 1,600 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #134 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 30–26 | 53.6% | #27 | 1,690 | 0 | 1 | 2016 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #131 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 33–26 | 55.9% | #22 | 1,710 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #219 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #94 | 1,593 | 0 | 1 | 2018 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #401 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #242 | 1,540 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2016 | 10–12 | 45.5% | #79 | 1,612 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2017 | 28–20 | 58.3% | #37 | 1,727 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2018 | 13–20 | 39.4% | #84 | 1,621 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2019 | 21–16 | 56.8% | #74 | 1,650 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2020 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #71 | 1,663 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2021 | 25–18 | 58.1% | #39 | 1,755 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2022 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #45 | 1,693 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2023 | 24–21 | 53.3% | #26 | 1,826 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2024 | 12–16 | 42.9% | #69 | 1,754 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2025 | 28–18 | 60.9% | #43 | 1,870 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2026 | 30–11 | 73.2% | #17 | 1,985 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |