H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 04:30 UTC
Zarina Diyas vs Lauren Davis H2H: 0-1
Lauren Davis holds a 1–0 lead over Zarina Diyas in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Lauren Davis leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Lauren Davis won the 2015 Washington third round 7-5 2-1 RET.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
KAZ
Age 32
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 32
Right-Handed
157 cm / 5'2"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 21, 2019 | Wuhan | WTA 1000 | Q2 | Hard | Lauren Davis | 6-3 6-4 | Zarina Diyas | Match data |
| Aug 6, 2015* | Washington | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Lauren Davis | 7-5 2-1 (ret.) | Zarina Diyas | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zarina Diyas | #437 | #31 | 1,495 | 1,751 | 99 | 127 | 43.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Lauren Davis | #499 | #26 | 1,646 | 1,823 | 140 | 181 | 43.6% | 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.
| Age | Zarina Diyas | Lauren Davis | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 2009 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #242 | 1,527 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 2010 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #172 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2011 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #227 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #319 | 1,469 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2012 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #264 | 1,476 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #91 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2013 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #163 | 1,477 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 13–17 | 43.3% | #70 | 1,576 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2014 | 20–14 | 58.8% | #33 | 1,683 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #55 | 1,649 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2015 | 20–27 | 42.6% | #52 | 1,576 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 13–21 | 38.2% | #88 | 1,578 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2016 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #150 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 12–9 | 57.1% | #61 | 1,668 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2017 | 7–4 | 63.6% | #66 | 1,667 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #50 | 1,634 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2018 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #89 | 1,718 | 0 | 1 | 2018 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #173 | 1,610 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2019 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #77 | 1,697 | 0 | 1 | 2019 | 9–12 | 42.9% | #64 | 1,733 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2020 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #80 | 1,655 | 0 | 1 | 2020 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #75 | 1,622 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2021 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #102 | 1,688 | 0 | 1 | 2021 | 12–16 | 42.9% | #89 | 1,646 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2022 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1031 | 1,680 | 0 | 1 | 2022 | 13–17 | 43.3% | #87 | 1,714 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 14–16 | 46.7% | #68 | 1,681 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 2024 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #382 | 1,632 | 0 | 1 | 2024 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #270 | 1,625 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2025 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #362 | 1,593 | 0 | 2 |