H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Fang Li vs Pam Shriver H2H: 1-1
Fang Li and Pam Shriver are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Fang Li leads 1–0 on carpet, while Pam Shriver leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Pam Shriver won the 1994 Beijing quarterfinal 4-6 7-5 6-1.
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
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
USA
Age 64
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 19, 1994* | Beijing | WTA 1000 | QF | Hard | Pam Shriver | 4-6 7-5 6-1 | Fang Li | Match data |
| Feb 11, 1994* | Osaka | WTA 250 | R32 | Carpet | Fang Li | 6-3 (ret.) | Pam Shriver | 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 |
| Pam Shriver | #234 | #3 | 163 | 2,302 | 624 | 277 | 69.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 20 | 24 |
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 | Pam Shriver | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1978 | 23–8 | 74.2% | — | 1,849 | 0 | 1 |
| 1993 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #132 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 | 1979 | 16–16 | 50.0% | — | 1,798 | 0 | 1 |
| 1994 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #67 | 1,609 | 0 | 0 | 1980 | 47–21 | 69.1% | — | 2,027 | 0 | 2 |
| 1995 | 9–8 | 52.9% | #93 | 1,613 | 0 | 0 | 1981 | 58–25 | 69.9% | — | 2,122 | 0 | 4 |
| 1996 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #199 | 1,585 | 0 | 0 | 1982 | 47–19 | 71.2% | — | 2,087 | 0 | 5 |
| 1997 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #69 | 1,594 | 0 | 0 | 1983 | 52–15 | 77.6% | — | 2,161 | 0 | 8 |
| 1998 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #40 | 1,676 | 0 | 0 | 1984 | 44–13 | 77.2% | #4 | 2,060 | 0 | 10 |
| 1999 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #86 | 1,585 | 0 | 0 | 1985 | 54–13 | 80.6% | #4 | 2,117 | 0 | 14 |
| 2000 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #503 | 1,541 | 0 | 0 | 1986 | 47–15 | 75.8% | #5 | 2,194 | 0 | 16 |
| 2001 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #488 | 1,500 | 0 | 0 | 1987 | 60–13 | 82.2% | #4 | 2,254 | 0 | 20 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1988 | 58–14 | 80.6% | #5 | 2,188 | 0 | 24 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1989 | 24–14 | 63.2% | #18 | 1,955 | 0 | 24 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1990 | 8–5 | 61.5% | #66 | 1,911 | 0 | 24 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1991 | 21–18 | 53.8% | #37 | 1,822 | 0 | 24 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1992 | 25–18 | 58.1% | #30 | 1,858 | 0 | 24 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1993 | 14–13 | 51.9% | #38 | 1,819 | 0 | 24 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1994 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #63 | 1,699 | 0 | 24 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 7–11 | 38.9% | #110 | 1,649 | 0 | 24 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1996 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #189 | 1,611 | 0 | 24 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1997 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #234 | 1,635 | 0 | 24 |