H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Dinara Safina vs Na Li H2H: 1-2
Na Li holds a 2–1 lead over Dinara Safina in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on clay, while Na Li leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Dinara Safina won the 2009 Madrid third round 6-3 7-6(2).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
RUS
Age 40
Right-Handed
182 cm / 6'0"
H2H
1
–
2
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 14, 2009* | Madrid | WTA 1000 | R32 | Clay | Dinara Safina | 6-3 7-6(2) | Na Li | Match data |
| Jan 20, 2007* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R32 | Hard | Na Li | 6-2 6-2 | Dinara Safina | Match data |
| Apr 30, 2005* | Estoril | WTA 250 | SF | Clay | Na Li | 6-1 6-1 | Dinara Safina | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dinara Safina | #452 | #1 | 10,521 | 2,120 | 299 | 160 | 65.1% | 0 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 11 |
| 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 | Dinara Safina | Na Li | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2002 | 12–5 | 70.6% | #68 | 1,667 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2003 | 18–15 | 54.5% | #54 | 1,749 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2004 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #44 | 1,713 | 0 | 2 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2005 | 37–19 | 66.1% | #20 | 1,839 | 0 | 4 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2006 | 44–21 | 67.7% | #11 | 1,871 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2007 | 38–22 | 63.3% | #15 | 1,862 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2008 | 51–18 | 73.9% | #3 | 2,020 | 0 | 8 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2009 | 55–16 | 77.5% | #2 | 1,951 | 0 | 11 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2010 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #63 | 1,795 | 0 | 11 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2011 | 11–9 | 55.0% | #132 | 1,783 | 0 | 11 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 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 |