H2H data updated: 2026-09-13 00:00 UTC

Jarmila Wolfe vs Na Li H2H: 0-3

Na Li holds a 3–0 lead over Jarmila Wolfe in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Na Li leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Na Li won the 2011 Italian Open round of 16 6-2 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.

Jarmila Wolfe
AUS Age 39 Right-Handed 174 cm / 5'9"
H2H
0 – 3
3 main-draw meetings
Na Li
CHN Age 44 Right-Handed 172 cm / 5'8"

H2H Match Log

PlayerScorePlayerMatch DataDateRoundTournamentCategorySurface
Na Li #6 6-2 6-1 Jarmila Wolfe #28 Match data May 13, 2011* R16 Italian Open Premier 5 → modern equivalent WTA 1000 Clay
Na Li #10 6-3 6-2 Jarmila Wolfe #64 Match data Aug 19, 2010* R32 Canadian Open Premier 5 → modern equivalent WTA 1000 Hard
Na Li #20 6-4 2-6 6-1 Jarmila Wolfe #67 Match data Jun 11, 2009* R32 Birmingham International → modern equivalent WTA 250 Grass

Estimated match date where the exact historical date is unavailable. Arrows show an edition's recorded category and documented modern equivalent; unresolved editions keep their recorded category. Asterisked totals include editions mapped from documented historical predecessor categories. Mapping details.

Career Comparison

Player Current Peak Pts Elo W L Win % GS 1000 including documented historical predecessor categories Finals 500 including documented historical predecessor categories 250 including documented historical predecessor categories Titles
Jarmila Wolfe #623 #25 2,060 1,800 104 137 43.2% 0 0 0 0 2 2
Na Li #9 #2 7,585 2,117 338 159 68.0% 2 1 0 1 5 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 Jarmila Wolfe Na Li
YrW-LWin %RankEloGSTitles YrW-LWin %RankEloGSTitles
16 2003 2–1 66.7% #195 1,532 0 0 — — — — — — —
17 2004 0–1 0.0% #222 1,515 0 0 — — — — — — —
18 2005 2–2 50.0% #147 1,537 0 0 2000 1–3 25.0% #136 1,496 0 0
19 2006 8–12 40.0% #69 1,533 0 0 2001 0–1 0.0% #302 1,480 0 0
20 2007 6–14 30.0% #142 1,475 0 0 — — — — — — —
21 2008 3–6 33.3% #99 1,504 0 0 — — — — — — —
22 2009 9–14 39.1% #110 1,562 0 0 2004 6–1 85.7% #78 1,599 0 1
23 2010 19–12 61.3% #42 1,688 0 1 2005 23–14 62.2% #56 1,710 0 1
24 2011 28–23 54.9% #33 1,697 0 2 2006 36–22 62.1% #21 1,818 0 1
25 2012 7–19 26.9% #183 1,510 0 2 2007 22–12 64.7% #29 1,819 0 1
26 2013 3–3 50.0% #238 1,535 0 2 2008 28–14 66.7% #23 1,863 0 2
27 2014 6–10 37.5% #71 1,553 0 2 2009 35–17 67.3% #15 1,938 0 2
28 2015 11–18 37.9% #105 1,537 0 2 2010 36–20 64.3% #11 1,849 0 3
29 2016 0–2 0.0% #624 1,479 0 2 2011 33–17 66.0% #5 1,862 1 5
30 — — — — — — — 2012 43–17 71.7% #7 1,999 1 6
31 — — — — — — — 2013 46–14 76.7% #3 2,067 1 7
32 — — — — — — — 2014 29–7 80.6% #9 2,024 2 9

Surface Results by Age

Seasons are aligned by the age each player spent most of that calendar year. Results cover completed main-draw matches. Bold green marks the higher win percentage when both players have at least 5 matches on that surface at the aligned age.

Age Jarmila Wolfe Na Li
Yr HardClayGrassCarpet Yr HardClayGrassCarpet
W L M Win % W L M Win % W L M Win % W L M Win % W L M Win % W L M Win % W L M Win % W L M Win %
16 2003 — — — — 2 1 3 66.7% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
17 2004 0 1 1 0.0% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
18 2005 2 2 4 50.0% — — — — — — — — — — — — 2000 1 3 4 25.0% — — — — — — — — — — — —
19 2006 6 6 12 50.0% 1 3 4 25.0% 1 3 4 25.0% — — — — 2001 0 1 1 0.0% — — — — — — — — — — — —
20 2007 2 10 12 16.7% 3 3 6 50.0% 1 1 2 50.0% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
21 2008 3 3 6 50.0% 0 2 2 0.0% 0 1 1 0.0% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
22 2009 2 8 10 20.0% 5 3 8 62.5% 2 3 5 40.0% — — — — 2004 6 1 7 85.7% — — — — — — — — — — — —
23 2010 10 7 17 58.8% 5 3 8 62.5% 4 2 6 66.7% — — — — 2005 16 12 28 57.1% 7 2 9 77.8% — — — — — — — —
24 2011 18 16 34 52.9% 8 5 13 61.5% 2 2 4 50.0% — — — — 2006 18 14 32 56.3% 12 4 16 75.0% 6 3 9 66.7% 0 1 1 0.0%
25 2012 5 12 17 29.4% 2 5 7 28.6% 0 1 1 0.0% 0 1 1 0.0% 2007 13 5 18 72.2% 6 5 11 54.5% 2 1 3 66.7% 1 1 2 50.0%
26 2013 3 3 6 50.0% — — — — — — — — — — — — 2008 26 12 38 68.4% — — — — 2 2 4 50.0% — — — —
27 2014 5 8 13 38.5% 0 1 1 0.0% 1 1 2 50.0% — — — — 2009 22 9 31 71.0% 5 4 9 55.6% 7 3 10 70.0% 1 1 2 50.0%
28 2015 9 11 20 45.0% 1 3 4 25.0% 1 4 5 20.0% — — — — 2010 17 14 31 54.8% 10 4 14 71.4% 9 2 11 81.8% — — — —
29 2016 0 2 2 0.0% — — — — — — — — — — — — 2011 16 12 28 57.1% 15 3 18 83.3% 2 2 4 50.0% — — — —
30 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2012 30 10 40 75.0% 12 4 16 75.0% 1 2 3 33.3% 0 1 1 0.0%
31 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2013 35 8 43 81.4% 5 4 9 55.6% 6 2 8 75.0% — — — —
32 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2014 22 3 25 88.0% 5 3 8 62.5% 2 1 3 66.7% — — — —
Career — 65 89 154 42.2% 27 29 56 48.2% 12 18 30 40.0% 0 1 1 0.0% — 222 104 326 68.1% 77 33 110 70.0% 37 18 55 67.3% 2 4 6 33.3%

Performance Progression by Age

Seasons are aligned by the age each player spent most of that calendar year. Detailed serve and return statistics available for 42/47 of Jarmila Wolfe's and 372/485 of Na Li's main draw matches. Sample is shown as matches with detailed serve and return statistics / total main draw matches. Bold green marks the stronger value when both stat samples contain at least 5 matches; lower is better for DFs/M.

Age Jarmila Wolfe Na Li
Yr Sample Aces/M DFs/M 1st Sv% 1st Pts% 2nd Pts% BP Saved% BP Conv% Svc Pts% Ret Pts% Yr Sample Aces/M DFs/M 1st Sv% 1st Pts% 2nd Pts% BP Saved% BP Conv% Svc Pts% Ret Pts%
23 — —/— — — — — — — — — — 2005 2/37 1.5 3.5 71.4% 54.3% 62.6% 49.2% 41.7% 56.3% 43.6%
24 — —/— — — — — — — — — — 2006 36/58 1.9 2.3 71.1% 61.5% 49.3% 51.6% 50.5% 57.6% 45.2%
25 — —/— — — — — — — — — — 2007 33/34 1.5 2.0 71.5% 62.4% 51.9% 52.6% 45.7% 59.2% 46.2%
26 — —/— — — — — — — — — — 2008 32/42 2.2 3.9 66.3% 63.4% 48.3% 58.5% 51.1% 58.2% 46.8%
27 2014 15/16 5.6 3.9 58.1% 67.2% 45.9% 47.1% 47.4% 57.9% 40.9% 2009 47/52 2.1 2.9 63.9% 65.4% 51.1% 45.7% 50.4% 59.9% 46.1%
28 2015 25/29 4.2 3.7 59.2% 65.8% 47.6% 45.6% 40.9% 58.3% 38.4% 2010 48/56 2.3 2.9 68.5% 65.7% 49.2% 50.4% 51.7% 60.4% 47.3%
29 2016 2/2 6.0 5.5 58.3% 61.4% 31.9% 50.0% 29.2% 49.2% 37.1% 2011 39/50 2.1 3.2 69.1% 64.4% 47.3% 54.6% 51.5% 59.1% 45.2%
30 — —/— — — — — — — — — — 2012 49/60 2.3 3.0 68.7% 65.1% 53.5% 57.5% 51.0% 61.2% 47.8%
31 — —/— — — — — — — — — — 2013 52/60 2.8 4.2 63.2% 67.9% 49.4% 58.5% 57.2% 61.0% 49.3%
32 — —/— — — — — — — — — — 2014 34/36 1.9 4.0 66.5% 66.3% 49.7% 55.6% 57.2% 60.8% 50.0%
Career — 42/241 4.8 3.9 58.8% 66.1% 46.3% 46.4% 42.7% 57.7% 39.2% — 372/497 2.2 3.2 67.4% 64.9% 50.1% 53.8% 51.9% 59.9% 47.2%

Advanced Statistics Comparison by Age

Seasons are aligned by the age each player spent most of that calendar year. Metrics use eligible main-draw results; point statistics use matches with detailed data. Bold green marks the stronger value when both underlying samples are sufficient. Lower is better for Schedule because a negative value means a tougher schedule. Career Schedule is normalized per 100 matches.

Age Jarmila Wolfe Na Li
Yr Elo P+ Serve+ Return+ PD TPW% Hard Elo Clay Elo Grass Elo Set Win % Set Margin Dec. Set Tiebreak Pressure+ Schedule Yr Elo P+ Serve+ Return+ PD TPW% Hard Elo Clay Elo Grass Elo Set Win % Set Margin Dec. Set Tiebreak Pressure+ Schedule
16 2003 1532 109.1 — — — — — +33 — 66.7% +1.17 — — — -0.09 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
17 2004 1515 97.3 — — — — — — — 0.0% -2.50 — — — +0.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
18 2005 1538 107.7 — — — — -8 — — 50.0% -0.63 — 1–0 — +0.03 2000 1497 107.1 — — — — +34 — — 14.3% -2.14 0–1 — — -0.21
19 2006 1533 102.2 — — — — 0 +11 +27 40.9% -0.55 2–2 (50%) 1–2 (33%) 98.8 +1.14 2001 1481 95.3 — — — — — — — 0.0% -4.00 — — — +0.12
20 2007 1475 97.8 — — — — -41 +56 — 35.6% -0.98 1–4 (20%) 0–2 — +0.59 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
21 2008 1505 117.9 — — — — -2 — — 35.0% -1.15 1–1 2–3 (40%) — -0.54 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
22 2009 1563 119.3 — — — — -98 +18 +22 43.4% -0.75 2–5 (29%) 2–3 (40%) 97.3 -0.65 2004 1600 125.7 — — — — +18 — — 81.3% +1.81 1–1 2–1 (67%) — +0.22
23 2010 1689 133.8 — — — — -92 -65 -29 61.4% +1.03 3–5 (38%) 3–5 (38%) 98.5 +1.85 2005 1711 139.1 -0.18 +0.14 0.999 49.8% -25 -56 — 61.4% +1.04 8–5 (62%) 4–4 (50%) 103.5 -0.97
24 2011 1698 138.0 — — — — -35 -1 -32 55.3% +0.24 5–9 (36%) 9–4 (69%) 101.3 -1.13 2006 1819 148.7 +1.65 +1.60 1.068 51.4% -79 -12 -62 61.2% +1.05 9–4 (69%) 7–4 (64%) 111.4 -2.52
25 2012 1510 111.2 — — — — +23 +130 — 33.3% -1.22 4–8 (33%) 3–4 (43%) 93.6 +0.36 2007 1820 150.2 +2.75 +2.06 1.133 52.7% +69 -38 -48 62.2% +0.96 7–7 (50%) 3–1 (75%) 102.0 +0.95
26 2013 1535 111.3 — — — — +14 — — 50.0% +0.14 1–1 — — +0.26 2008 1864 153.7 +2.74 +2.93 1.119 52.6% +37 — -127 60.4% +0.83 12–5 (71%) 4–4 (50%) 103.2 -1.80
27 2014 1554 120.0 +0.80 -1.14 0.972 49.3% +14 — — 47.4% -0.03 2–6 (25%) 2–2 (50%) 97.6 +0.49 2009 1938 153.8 +4.35 +2.54 1.150 52.7% +49 -152 -127 64.9% +1.04 10–6 (63%) 8–6 (57%) 103.4 -2.23
28 2015 1537 122.3 +0.24 -2.00 0.920 48.3% +41 +43 +60 44.1% -0.62 4–8 (33%) 3–4 (43%) 96.9 -0.27 2010 1850 150.5 +4.51 +3.61 1.195 53.7% -23 -4 +91 64.3% +1.23 9–9 (50%) 6–7 (46%) 96.6 +0.93
29 2016 1480 93.6 -1.39 +0.21 0.729 43.2% — — — 20.0% -2.00 0–1 1–1 — +0.07 2011 1862 151.3 +3.52 +2.62 1.106 52.2% -57 +131 +42 62.8% +0.61 8–7 (53%) 9–6 (60%) 102.8 -0.26
30 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2012 2000 162.2 +5.42 +5.11 1.234 54.2% -1 -5 -158 68.1% +1.30 11–10 (52%) 6–4 (60%) 100.7 0.00
31 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2013 2067 165.5 +5.56 +6.05 1.265 55.0% +56 -126 -177 72.1% +1.64 8–5 (62%) 7–6 (54%) 99.0 -2.68
32 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2014 2024 155.9 +4.17 +5.37 1.275 55.5% +114 -110 -151 75.0% +1.82 6–4 (60%) 5–5 (50%) 96.9 +0.97
Career — 1801 126.0 +0.36 -1.59 0.927 48.4% -18 +22 +9 46.4% -0.29 25–50 (33%) 27–30 (47%) 92.4 +0.91 — 2117 160.4 +4.01 +3.66 1.175 53.4% +13 -21 -66 65.1% +1.13 89–64 (58%) 61–48 (56%) 106.5 -1.53

Career Rivalries

Each player's five most-played main-draw opponents. The current matchup is highlighted when it appears in a player's top five.