H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Flavia Pennetta vs Na Li H2H: 3-2
Flavia Pennetta holds a 3–2 lead over Na Li in their WTA head-to-head. Across 5 main-draw meetings, Flavia Pennetta leads 3–2 on hard courts. Most recently, Flavia Pennetta won the 2014 Indian Wells semifinal 7-6(5) 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.
ITA
Age 44
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H
3
–
2
5 main draw meetings
CHN
Age 44
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 8, 2014* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | SF | Hard | Flavia Pennetta | 7-6(5) 6-3 | Na Li | Match data |
| Jan 24, 2014* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | QF | Hard | Na Li | 6-2 6-2 | Flavia Pennetta | Match data |
| Jan 15, 2010* | Sydney | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Flavia Pennetta | 6-2 7-6(4) | Na Li | Match data |
| Jan 12, 2006* | Sydney | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Na Li | 6-4 6-1 | Flavia Pennetta | Match data |
| Jan 6, 2006* | Gold Coast | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Flavia Pennetta | 6-2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flavia Pennetta | #15 | #6 | 3,621 | 1,982 | 418 | 272 | 60.6% | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 3 | 11 |
| 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 | Flavia Pennetta | Na Li | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2002 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #95 | 1,482 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2003 | 18–20 | 47.4% | #69 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2004 | 30–22 | 57.7% | #38 | 1,670 | 0 | 1 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2005 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #23 | 1,777 | 0 | 3 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2006 | 29–18 | 61.7% | #28 | 1,729 | 0 | 3 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2007 | 30–24 | 55.6% | #39 | 1,768 | 0 | 4 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2008 | 50–23 | 68.5% | #13 | 1,900 | 0 | 6 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2009 | 52–23 | 69.3% | #12 | 1,902 | 0 | 8 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2010 | 45–23 | 66.2% | #24 | 1,847 | 0 | 9 | 2010 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #11 | 1,844 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2011 | 31–22 | 58.5% | #20 | 1,785 | 0 | 9 | 2011 | 33–17 | 66.0% | #5 | 1,868 | 1 | 5 |
| 30 | 2012 | 19–13 | 59.4% | #45 | 1,735 | 0 | 9 | 2012 | 43–16 | 72.9% | #7 | 2,016 | 1 | 6 |
| 31 | 2013 | 19–20 | 48.7% | #31 | 1,745 | 0 | 9 | 2013 | 46–14 | 76.7% | #3 | 2,077 | 1 | 7 |
| 32 | 2014 | 30–20 | 60.0% | #12 | 1,780 | 0 | 10 | 2014 | 29–7 | 80.6% | #9 | 2,031 | 2 | 9 |
| 33 | 2015 | 27–20 | 57.4% | #8 | 1,823 | 1 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |