H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Wendy Turnbull vs Ching Ling Chang H2H: 0-1
Ching Ling Chang holds a 1–0 lead over Wendy Turnbull in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Ching Ling Chang leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Ching Ling Chang won the 1974 Ocala second round 6-3 6-1.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
AUS
Age 73
Right-Handed
164 cm / 5'5"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
Age 78
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 13, 1974* | Ocala | WTA 250 | R64 | Clay | Ching Ling Chang | 6-3 6-1 | Wendy Turnbull | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wendy Turnbull | #346 | #3 | 38 | 2,181 | 585 | 330 | 63.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 16 | 18 |
| Ching Ling Chang | — | — | — | 1,500 | 13 | 41 | 24.1% | 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.
| Age | Wendy Turnbull | Ching Ling Chang | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1968 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,490 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1969 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,476 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1970 | 0–3 | 0.0% | — | 1,453 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1971 | 1–3 | 25.0% | — | 1,452 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1972 | 24–13 | 64.9% | — | 1,650 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1973 | 33–20 | 62.3% | — | 1,744 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 1974 | 16–14 | 53.3% | — | 1,648 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 1975 | 13–15 | 46.4% | — | 1,713 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 23 | 1976 | 27–21 | 56.2% | — | 1,846 | 0 | 10 | 1971 | 0–5 | 0.0% | — | 1,467 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1977 | 31–20 | 60.8% | — | 2,041 | 0 | 10 | 1972 | 0–3 | 0.0% | — | 1,435 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1978 | 54–23 | 70.1% | — | 2,064 | 0 | 10 | 1973 | 5–11 | 31.2% | — | 1,441 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1979 | 62–27 | 69.7% | — | 2,071 | 0 | 12 | 1974 | 8–16 | 33.3% | — | 1,467 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1980 | 69–26 | 72.6% | — | 2,135 | 0 | 14 | 1975 | 0–6 | 0.0% | — | 1,412 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 1981 | 45–23 | 66.2% | — | 2,050 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 1982 | 47–20 | 70.1% | — | 2,070 | 0 | 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 1983 | 47–18 | 72.3% | — | 2,063 | 0 | 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 1984 | 37–16 | 69.8% | #5 | 2,022 | 0 | 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 1985 | 36–18 | 66.7% | #5 | 1,960 | 0 | 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 1986 | 17–15 | 53.1% | #18 | 1,864 | 0 | 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 1987 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #23 | 1,779 | 0 | 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 1988 | 4–13 | 23.5% | #135 | 1,651 | 0 | 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 1989 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #266 | 1,631 | 0 | 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |