H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:32 UTC
Zarina Diyas vs Madison Brengle H2H: 0-1
Madison Brengle holds a 1–0 lead over Zarina Diyas in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Madison Brengle leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Madison Brengle won the 2015 Tokyo third round 6-2 6-2.
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 36
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 24, 2015* | Tokyo | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Madison Brengle | 6-2 6-2 | 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 |
| Madison Brengle | #210 | #35 | 1,324 | 1,740 | 94 | 151 | 38.4% | 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 | Zarina Diyas | Madison Brengle | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2007 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #229 | 1,502 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2012 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #264 | 1,476 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #220 | 1,457 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2013 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #163 | 1,477 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #165 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2014 | 20–14 | 58.8% | #33 | 1,683 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #188 | 1,447 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2015 | 20–27 | 42.6% | #52 | 1,576 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #197 | 1,459 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2016 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #150 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #191 | 1,444 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2017 | 7–4 | 63.6% | #66 | 1,667 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 2018 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #89 | 1,718 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #95 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2019 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #77 | 1,697 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 25–26 | 49.0% | #40 | 1,627 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2020 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #80 | 1,655 | 0 | 1 | 2016 | 16–22 | 42.1% | #73 | 1,602 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2021 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #102 | 1,688 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #83 | 1,656 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2022 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1031 | 1,680 | 0 | 1 | 2018 | 3–11 | 21.4% | #88 | 1,606 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2019 | 7–11 | 38.9% | #95 | 1,601 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2024 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #382 | 1,632 | 0 | 1 | 2020 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #82 | 1,641 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2021 | 6–14 | 30.0% | #59 | 1,645 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 12–16 | 42.9% | #57 | 1,637 | 0 | 0 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 6–14 | 30.0% | #151 | 1,586 | 0 | 0 |