H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Evgeniya Rodina vs Na Li H2H: 0-1
Na Li holds a 1–0 lead over Evgeniya Rodina in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Na Li leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Na Li won the 2011 Australian Open second round 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.
RUS
Age 37
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
0
–
1
1 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 21, 2011* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Na Li | 6-3 6-2 | Evgeniya Rodina | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evgeniya Rodina | #1,376 | #67 | 882 | 1,663 | 74 | 119 | 38.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 | Evgeniya Rodina | Na Li | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2005 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #320 | 1,516 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2007 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #120 | 1,524 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2008 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #145 | 1,523 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2009 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #99 | 1,527 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2010 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #107 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2011 | 9–12 | 42.9% | #106 | 1,560 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2012 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #370 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2013 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #474 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2015 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #87 | 1,588 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2016 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #86 | 1,650 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2017 | 9–18 | 33.3% | #105 | 1,572 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #11 | 1,844 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2018 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #71 | 1,570 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 33–17 | 66.0% | #5 | 1,868 | 1 | 5 |
| 30 | 2019 | 4–16 | 20.0% | #295 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 | 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 |
| 33 | 2022 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #438 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2023 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #443 | 1,504 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |