H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Anastasia Rodionova vs Na Li H2H: 0-3
Na Li holds a 3–0 lead over Anastasia Rodionova in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Na Li leads 2–0 on grass and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Na Li won the 2011 Sydney third round 6-1 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.
AUS
Age 44
Right-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H
0
–
3
3 main draw meetings
CHN
Age 44
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 13, 2011* | Sydney | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Na Li | 6-1 6-2 | Anastasia Rodionova | Match data |
| Jun 26, 2010* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R32 | Grass | Na Li | 6-1 6-3 | Anastasia Rodionova | Match data |
| Jun 25, 2008* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R128 | Grass | Na Li | 3-6 6-0 6-1 | Anastasia Rodionova | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anastasia Rodionova | #872 | #62 | 1,095 | 1,649 | 86 | 150 | 36.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 | Anastasia Rodionova | Na Li | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 2000 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #239 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2001 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #195 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2002 | 5–3 | 62.5% | #118 | 1,521 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2003 | 7–8 | 46.7% | #165 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2004 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #212 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2005 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #140 | 1,517 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2006 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #94 | 1,526 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2007 | 11–20 | 35.5% | #78 | 1,525 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2008 | 8–20 | 28.6% | #98 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2009 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #95 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2010 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #64 | 1,606 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #11 | 1,844 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2011 | 8–21 | 27.6% | #108 | 1,573 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 33–17 | 66.0% | #5 | 1,868 | 1 | 5 |
| 30 | 2012 | 6–13 | 31.6% | #139 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 43–16 | 72.9% | #7 | 2,016 | 1 | 6 |
| 31 | 2013 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #162 | 1,502 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 46–14 | 76.7% | #3 | 2,077 | 1 | 7 |
| 32 | 2014 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #185 | 1,514 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 29–7 | 80.6% | #9 | 2,031 | 2 | 9 |
| 33 | 2015 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #235 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2016 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #797 | 1,476 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2017 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #390 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |