H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Xinyun Han vs Alison Riske-Amritraj H2H: 0-2
Alison Riske-Amritraj holds a 2–0 lead over Xinyun Han in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Alison Riske-Amritraj leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Alison Riske-Amritraj won the 2016 Tianjin quarterfinal 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.
CHN
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H
0
–
2
2 main draw meetings
USA
Age 36
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 15, 2016* | Tianjin | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Alison Riske-Amritraj | 6-3 6-3 | Xinyun Han | Match data |
| Oct 15, 2015* | Tianjin | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Alison Riske-Amritraj | 6-0 6-4 | Xinyun Han | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xinyun Han | #1,386 | #105 | 597 | 1,565 | 21 | 33 | 38.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Alison Riske-Amritraj | #1,157 | #18 | 2,360 | 1,853 | 191 | 202 | 48.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 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.
| Xinyun Han | Alison Riske-Amritraj | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2008 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #339 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #115 | 1,554 | 0 | 0 |
| 2009 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #191 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #136 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #131 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #180 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #324 | 1,501 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 11–6 | 64.7% | #57 | 1,642 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #391 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 24–22 | 52.2% | #43 | 1,713 | 0 | 1 |
| 2015 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #157 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 15–24 | 38.5% | #97 | 1,602 | 0 | 1 |
| 2016 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #111 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 23–19 | 54.8% | #39 | 1,742 | 0 | 1 |
| 2017 | 8–7 | 53.3% | #131 | 1,494 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 21–24 | 46.7% | #70 | 1,650 | 0 | 1 |
| 2018 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #159 | 1,504 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 17–16 | 51.5% | #62 | 1,632 | 0 | 1 |
| 2019 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #187 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 | 2019 | 26–23 | 53.1% | #18 | 1,797 | 0 | 2 |
| 2020 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #207 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 | 2020 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #26 | 1,739 | 0 | 2 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2021 | 16–15 | 51.6% | #51 | 1,771 | 0 | 3 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 25–21 | 54.3% | #41 | 1,750 | 0 | 3 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 0–8 | 0.0% | #659 | 1,614 | 0 | 3 |