H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Chanelle Scheepers vs Na Li H2H: 0-3
Na Li holds a 3–0 lead over Chanelle Scheepers in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Na Li leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Na Li won the 2012 Rome fourth round 7-6(3) 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.
RSA
Age 42
Right-Handed
176 cm / 5'9"
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 18, 2012* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R16 | Clay | Na Li | 7-6(3) 6-2 | Chanelle Scheepers | Match data |
| Jan 13, 2012* | Sydney | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Na Li | 2-6 6-4 6-1 | Chanelle Scheepers | Match data |
| Jun 23, 2010* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R128 | Grass | Na Li | 7-6(5) 6-2 | Chanelle Scheepers | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chanelle Scheepers | #429 | #37 | 1,505 | 1,725 | 87 | 108 | 44.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 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 | Chanelle Scheepers | Na Li | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2003 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #299 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2008 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #187 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2009 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #127 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2010 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #103 | 1,523 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2011 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #38 | 1,658 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2012 | 24–26 | 48.0% | #60 | 1,677 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #11 | 1,844 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2013 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #80 | 1,572 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 33–17 | 66.0% | #5 | 1,868 | 1 | 5 |
| 30 | 2014 | 15–17 | 46.9% | #77 | 1,620 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 43–16 | 72.9% | #7 | 2,016 | 1 | 6 |
| 31 | 2015 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #424 | 1,569 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 46–14 | 76.7% | #3 | 2,077 | 1 | 7 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 29–7 | 80.6% | #9 | 2,031 | 2 | 9 |