H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Su-Wei Hsieh vs Qiang Wang H2H: 3-2
Su-Wei Hsieh holds a 3–2 lead over Qiang Wang in their WTA head-to-head. Across 5 main-draw meetings, Su-Wei Hsieh leads 2–1 on hard courts, while they are tied 1–1 on clay. Most recently, Qiang Wang won the 2021 Roland Garros first round 2-6 6-4 7-5.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
TPE
Age 40
Right-Handed
169 cm / 5'7"
H2H
3
–
2
5 main draw meetings
CHN
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 1, 2021* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R128 | Clay | Qiang Wang | 2-6 6-4 7-5 | Su-Wei Hsieh | Match data |
| Aug 14, 2019* | Cincinnati | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Su-Wei Hsieh | 6-3 6-4 | Qiang Wang | Match data |
| Apr 25, 2019* | Stuttgart | WTA 500 | R32 | Clay | Su-Wei Hsieh | 4-6 6-3 6-4 | Qiang Wang | Match data |
| Sep 15, 2018* | Hiroshima | WTA 250 | SF | Hard | Su-Wei Hsieh | 6-4 6-4 | Qiang Wang | Match data |
| Sep 14, 2017* | Japan Women's Open Tennis | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Qiang Wang | 7-5 6-2 | Su-Wei Hsieh | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Su-Wei Hsieh | #909 | #23 | 1,960 | 1,874 | 150 | 173 | 46.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Qiang Wang | #421 | #12 | 2,946 | 1,925 | 128 | 125 | 50.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
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.
| Su-Wei Hsieh | Qiang Wang | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2001 | 5–2 | 71.4% | #164 | 1,549 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #185 | 1,458 | 0 | 0 |
| 2002 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #267 | 1,541 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #226 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 |
| 2005 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #142 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #102 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 |
| 2006 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #129 | 1,462 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #110 | 1,448 | 0 | 0 |
| 2007 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #157 | 1,419 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #72 | 1,568 | 0 | 0 |
| 2008 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #81 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 24–19 | 55.8% | #45 | 1,724 | 0 | 0 |
| 2009 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #314 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #21 | 1,900 | 0 | 2 |
| 2010 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #362 | 1,455 | 0 | 0 | 2019 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #30 | 1,797 | 0 | 2 |
| 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #172 | 1,460 | 0 | 0 | 2020 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #34 | 1,770 | 0 | 2 |
| 2012 | 22–13 | 62.9% | #25 | 1,689 | 0 | 2 | 2021 | 9–13 | 40.9% | #104 | 1,713 | 0 | 2 |
| 2013 | 13–25 | 34.2% | #86 | 1,558 | 0 | 2 | 2022 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #91 | 1,716 | 0 | 2 |
| 2014 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #141 | 1,545 | 0 | 2 | 2024 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #376 | 1,624 | 0 | 2 |
| 2015 | 6–5 | 54.5% | #93 | 1,583 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2016 | 12–12 | 50.0% | #87 | 1,588 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2017 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #82 | 1,600 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2018 | 30–16 | 65.2% | #28 | 1,768 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2019 | 30–23 | 56.6% | #32 | 1,777 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2020 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #67 | 1,703 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2021 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #108 | 1,686 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2023 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #713 | 1,658 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |