H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 10:32 UTC
Anastasija Sevastova vs Na Li H2H: 0-2
Na Li holds a 2–0 lead over Anastasija Sevastova 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 2011 Stuttgart third round 6-2 6-3.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
LAT
Age 36
Right-Handed
169 cm / 5'7"
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 21, 2011* | Stuttgart | WTA 500 | R32 | Clay | Na Li | 6-2 6-3 | Anastasija Sevastova | Match data |
| Oct 9, 2010* | Beijing | WTA 1000 | QF | Hard | Na Li | 7-6(6) 6-3 | Anastasija Sevastova | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anastasija Sevastova | #293 | #11 | 3,366 | 1,946 | 207 | 175 | 54.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| 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 | Anastasija Sevastova | Na Li | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 2007 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #261 | 1,510 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2009 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #79 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2010 | 22–15 | 59.5% | #45 | 1,718 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2011 | 12–18 | 40.0% | #98 | 1,628 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2012 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #184 | 1,610 | 0 | 1 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2013 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #148 | 1,622 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2015 | 5–3 | 62.5% | #113 | 1,654 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2016 | 22–19 | 53.7% | #34 | 1,715 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2017 | 37–24 | 60.7% | #16 | 1,820 | 0 | 2 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2018 | 42–21 | 66.7% | #11 | 1,909 | 0 | 3 | 2010 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #11 | 1,844 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2019 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #27 | 1,759 | 0 | 4 | 2011 | 33–17 | 66.0% | #5 | 1,868 | 1 | 5 |
| 30 | 2020 | 1–9 | 10.0% | #54 | 1,649 | 0 | 4 | 2012 | 43–16 | 72.9% | #7 | 2,016 | 1 | 6 |
| 31 | 2021 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #70 | 1,739 | 0 | 4 | 2013 | 46–14 | 76.7% | #3 | 2,077 | 1 | 7 |
| 32 | 2022 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #680 | 1,722 | 0 | 4 | 2014 | 29–7 | 80.6% | #9 | 2,031 | 2 | 9 |
| 34 | 2024 | 4–2 | 66.7% | #481 | 1,728 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2025 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #188 | 1,730 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |