Skip to content
Table Tennis Global

Players

The Best China-Slayers Don't Play For China

Beating Chinese opponents in table tennis is the hardest job in the sport. A short list does it often enough to mean something.

Topspin Data Desk · Data desk · 2026-07-07T10:22:05.453Z · 6 min read · Rating method

China's depth means most non-Chinese players spend their careers losing to Chinese opponents. The interesting question is who loses the least.

Win rate vs Chinese opponents (singles, min 15 matches)

HASHIMOTO Honoka (JPN)63.8%MATSUSHIMA Sora (JPN)55%ZHU Yuling (MAC)50.5%CHO Seungmin (KOR)46.9%LIND Anders (DEN)44%LEBRUN Alexis (FRA)43.5%HARIMOTO Tomokazu (JPN)42.4%SATO Hitomi (JPN)40.5%JANG Woojin (KOR)37.5%ODO Satsuki (JPN)36.7%FRANZISKA Patrick (GER)36%LIN Yun-Ju (TPE)36%
2026-W26
Breakdown

HASHIMOTO Honoka leads non-Chinese players at 63.8% vs China over 58 matches.

Source: ITTF/WTT-style rankings and match dataset. Snapshot 2026-W26.

Singles matches (MS/WS) against opponents from China, non-Chinese players, minimum 15 such matches. Dataset snapshot 2026-W26 (women/boys/girls); men's ranking snapshot is 2026-W9 in this dataset. Figures reflect available rankings and match rows in this database.

HASHIMOTO Honoka (JPN) wins 63.8% of singles matches against Chinese opponents across 58 such meetings. That is the best rate in the dataset among players with enough China matches for the number to mean something.

The list is short and it is not random. The players who clear 40% versus China tend to share something: they have already had enough cracks at the top of the sport to stop being surprised by it.

The top of the vs-China table: HASHIMOTO Honoka 63.8% over 58; MATSUSHIMA Sora 55.0% over 20; ZHU Yuling 50.5% over 101; CHO Seungmin 46.9% over 32; LIND Anders 44.0% over 25; LEBRUN Alexis 43.5% over 23; HARIMOTO Tomokazu 42.4% over 85; SATO Hitomi 40.5% over 42.

Caveat the method. This is a raw rate, not an opponent-adjusted one. A win over a Chinese qualifier and a win over a Chinese world number one count the same here. The number is a frequency, not a strength rating. But frequency is still the right first question, and the same names keep answering it.