H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Ekaterina Makarova vs Na Li H2H: 0-5
Na Li holds a 5–0 lead over Ekaterina Makarova in their WTA head-to-head. Across 5 main-draw meetings, Na Li leads 5–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Na Li won the 2014 Australian Open fourth round 6-2 6-0.
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 38
Left-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
0
–
5
5 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 22, 2014* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R16 | Hard | Na Li | 6-2 6-0 | Ekaterina Makarova | Match data |
| Sep 5, 2013* | US Open | Grand Slam | QF | Hard | Na Li | 6-4 6-7(5) 6-2 | Ekaterina Makarova | Match data |
| Jan 12, 2012* | Sydney | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Na Li | 6-0 6-3 | Ekaterina Makarova | Match data |
| Mar 27, 2009* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R16 | Hard | Na Li | 6-7(3) 6-2 6-2 | Ekaterina Makarova | Match data |
| Aug 31, 2008* | US Open | Grand Slam | R32 | Hard | Na Li | 6-1 4-6 6-2 | Ekaterina Makarova | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ekaterina Makarova | #1,000 | #8 | 3,620 | 1,940 | 248 | 222 | 52.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| 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 | Ekaterina Makarova | 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 | 2007 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #110 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2008 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #46 | 1,626 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2009 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #60 | 1,634 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2010 | 14–20 | 41.2% | #49 | 1,662 | 0 | 1 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2011 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #53 | 1,604 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2012 | 26–19 | 57.8% | #20 | 1,757 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2013 | 24–18 | 57.1% | #24 | 1,838 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2014 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #11 | 1,837 | 0 | 2 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2015 | 26–16 | 61.9% | #23 | 1,784 | 0 | 2 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2016 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #30 | 1,782 | 0 | 2 | 2010 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #11 | 1,844 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2017 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #33 | 1,836 | 0 | 3 | 2011 | 33–17 | 66.0% | #5 | 1,868 | 1 | 5 |
| 30 | 2018 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #57 | 1,750 | 0 | 3 | 2012 | 43–16 | 72.9% | #7 | 2,016 | 1 | 6 |
| 31 | 2019 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #997 | 1,700 | 0 | 3 | 2013 | 46–14 | 76.7% | #3 | 2,077 | 1 | 7 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 29–7 | 80.6% | #9 | 2,031 | 2 | 9 |