H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Elena Vesnina vs Na Li H2H: 3-1
Elena Vesnina holds a 3–1 lead over Na Li in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while Elena Vesnina leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Elena Vesnina won the 2013 Eastbourne quarterfinal 7-6(4) 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.
RUS
Age 39
Right-Handed
176 cm / 5'9"
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 22, 2013* | Eastbourne | WTA 500 | QF | Grass | Elena Vesnina | 7-6(4) 6-3 | Na Li | Match data |
| Feb 18, 2009* | Dubai | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Elena Vesnina | 1-6 6-4 6-4 | Na Li | Match data |
| Oct 12, 2006* | Moscow | WTA 1000 | R32 | Carpet | Elena Vesnina | 6-2 1-6 7-6(11) | Na Li | Match data |
| Sep 22, 2006* | Beijing | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Na Li | 3-6 6-1 6-1 | Elena Vesnina | 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 Vesnina | #573 | #13 | 3,320 | 1,858 | 262 | 260 | 50.2% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 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 | Elena Vesnina | Na Li | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 2004 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #259 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2005 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #106 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2006 | 20–24 | 45.5% | #47 | 1,617 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2007 | 17–21 | 44.7% | #54 | 1,631 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2008 | 12–19 | 38.7% | #79 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2009 | 31–20 | 60.8% | #23 | 1,767 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2010 | 22–22 | 50.0% | #52 | 1,720 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2011 | 19–21 | 47.5% | #57 | 1,689 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2012 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #68 | 1,701 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2013 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #25 | 1,801 | 0 | 2 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2014 | 16–17 | 48.5% | #64 | 1,689 | 0 | 2 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2015 | 11–17 | 39.3% | #115 | 1,609 | 0 | 2 | 2010 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #11 | 1,844 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2016 | 28–16 | 63.6% | #16 | 1,778 | 0 | 2 | 2011 | 33–17 | 66.0% | #5 | 1,868 | 1 | 5 |
| 30 | 2017 | 25–26 | 49.0% | #18 | 1,691 | 0 | 3 | 2012 | 43–16 | 72.9% | #7 | 2,016 | 1 | 6 |
| 31 | 2018 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #137 | 1,679 | 0 | 3 | 2013 | 46–14 | 76.7% | #3 | 2,077 | 1 | 7 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 29–7 | 80.6% | #9 | 2,031 | 2 | 9 |
| 34 | 2021 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #310 | 1,689 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |