H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Fang Li vs Emanuela Zardo H2H: 2-1
Fang Li holds a 2–1 lead over Emanuela Zardo in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Emanuela Zardo leads 1–0 on clay, while Fang Li leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Fang Li won the 1994 Wimbledon first round 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.
CHN
Right-Handed
166 cm / 5'5"
H2H
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
SUI
Age 56
Left-Handed
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 22, 1994* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R128 | Grass | Fang Li | 6-4 6-3 | Emanuela Zardo | Match data |
| Jan 5, 1994* | Brisbane | WTA 500 | R64 | Hard | Fang Li | 7-6 7-6 | Emanuela Zardo | Match data |
| May 27, 1992* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R128 | Clay | Emanuela Zardo | 6-1 6-2 | Fang 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fang Li | #488 | #36 | 723 | 1,705 | 67 | 89 | 42.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Emanuela Zardo | #976 | #27 | 80 | 1,765 | 69 | 74 | 48.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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.
| Fang Li | Emanuela Zardo | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 1992 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #119 | 1,547 | 0 | 0 | 1987 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #258 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 1993 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #132 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 | 1988 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #283 | 1,476 | 0 | 0 |
| 1994 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #67 | 1,609 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #142 | 1,450 | 0 | 0 |
| 1995 | 9–8 | 52.9% | #93 | 1,613 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 13–12 | 52.0% | #63 | 1,594 | 0 | 0 |
| 1996 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #199 | 1,585 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 17–11 | 60.7% | #31 | 1,714 | 0 | 1 |
| 1997 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #69 | 1,594 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 18–14 | 56.2% | #39 | 1,750 | 0 | 1 |
| 1998 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #40 | 1,676 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 12–16 | 42.9% | #73 | 1,654 | 0 | 1 |
| 1999 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #86 | 1,585 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 9–13 | 40.9% | #89 | 1,575 | 0 | 1 |
| 2000 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #503 | 1,541 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #181 | 1,543 | 0 | 1 |
| 2001 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #488 | 1,500 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |