H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Ana Ivanovic vs Na Li H2H: 0-2
Na Li holds a 2–0 lead over Ana Ivanovic in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Na Li leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Na Li won the 2013 Toronto fourth round 3-6 6-1 7-6(5).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
SRB
Age 38
Right-Handed
184 cm / 6'0"
H2H
0
–
2
2 main draw meetings
CHN
Age 44
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 5, 2013 | Toronto | WTA 1000 | R16 | Hard | Na Li | 3-6 6-1 7-6(5) | Ana Ivanovic | Match data |
| May 10, 2006* | Berlin | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Na Li | 1-6 0-0 (ret.) | Ana Ivanovic | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ana Ivanovic | #63 | #1 | 6,912 | 2,095 | 419 | 213 | 66.3% | 1 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 15 |
| Na Li | #9 | #2 | 7,585 | 2,124 | 334 | 155 | 68.3% | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 9 |
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 | Ana Ivanovic | Na Li | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2004 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #101 | 1,544 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2005 | 32–14 | 69.6% | #16 | 1,847 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2006 | 36–18 | 66.7% | #14 | 1,900 | 0 | 2 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2007 | 49–17 | 74.2% | #4 | 2,034 | 0 | 5 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2008 | 38–16 | 70.4% | #5 | 1,975 | 1 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2009 | 22–14 | 61.1% | #21 | 1,825 | 1 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2010 | 33–18 | 64.7% | #17 | 1,938 | 1 | 10 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2011 | 32–20 | 61.5% | #22 | 1,877 | 1 | 11 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2012 | 33–18 | 64.7% | #13 | 1,872 | 1 | 11 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2013 | 38–23 | 62.3% | #16 | 1,855 | 1 | 11 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2014 | 59–18 | 76.6% | #5 | 2,019 | 1 | 15 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2015 | 29–19 | 60.4% | #16 | 1,857 | 1 | 15 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2016 | 15–14 | 51.7% | #63 | 1,702 | 1 | 15 | 2010 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #11 | 1,844 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 33–17 | 66.0% | #5 | 1,868 | 1 | 5 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 43–16 | 72.9% | #7 | 2,016 | 1 | 6 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 46–14 | 76.7% | #3 | 2,077 | 1 | 7 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 29–7 | 80.6% | #9 | 2,031 | 2 | 9 |