H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Elena Dementieva vs Na Li H2H: 3-1
Elena Dementieva holds a 3–1 lead over Na Li in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Elena Dementieva leads 3–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Elena Dementieva won the 2009 Beijing 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 44
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
3
–
1
4 main draw meetings
CHN
Age 44
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 9, 2009* | Beijing | WTA 1000 | R16 | Hard | Elena Dementieva | 6-2 6-0 | Na Li | Match data |
| Sep 2, 2008* | US Open | Grand Slam | R16 | Hard | Elena Dementieva | 6-4 6-1 | Na Li | Match data |
| Jan 12, 2007* | Sydney | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Na Li | 3-6 6-1 7-5 | Elena Dementieva | Match data |
| Mar 10, 2006* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R16 | Hard | Elena Dementieva | 6-3 6-2 | Na Li | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elena Dementieva | #10 | #3 | 8,286 | 2,108 | 472 | 243 | 66.0% | 0 | 3 | 0 | 9 | 3 | 15 |
| 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 | Elena Dementieva | Na Li | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #349 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1998 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #186 | 1,478 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1999 | 11–11 | 50.0% | #62 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2000 | 33–19 | 63.5% | #11 | 1,859 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2001 | 34–22 | 60.7% | #15 | 1,833 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2002 | 36–26 | 58.1% | #19 | 1,763 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2003 | 47–25 | 65.3% | #8 | 1,966 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2004 | 40–22 | 64.5% | #6 | 1,986 | 0 | 4 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2005 | 41–22 | 65.1% | #8 | 1,925 | 0 | 4 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2006 | 45–21 | 68.2% | #8 | 1,908 | 0 | 6 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2007 | 41–18 | 69.5% | #11 | 1,964 | 0 | 8 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2008 | 50–17 | 74.6% | #4 | 2,014 | 0 | 10 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2009 | 55–18 | 75.3% | #5 | 1,981 | 0 | 13 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2010 | 39–19 | 67.2% | #9 | 1,928 | 0 | 15 | 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 |