H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 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 Rome fourth round 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.
AUS
Age 39
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H
0
–
3
3 main draw meetings
CHN
Age 44
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 13, 2011* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R16 | Clay | Na Li | 6-2 6-1 | Jarmila Wolfe | Match data |
| Aug 19, 2010* | Montreal | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Na Li | 6-3 6-2 | Jarmila Wolfe | Match data |
| Jun 11, 2009* | Birmingham | WTA 250 | R32 | Grass | Na Li | 6-4 2-6 6-1 | Jarmila Wolfe | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jarmila Wolfe | #623 | #25 | 2,060 | 1,799 | 104 | 137 | 43.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| 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 | Jarmila Wolfe | Na Li | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 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 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2006 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #69 | 1,533 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2007 | 6–14 | 30.0% | #142 | 1,475 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2008 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #99 | 1,505 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2009 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #110 | 1,562 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2010 | 19–12 | 61.3% | #42 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2011 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #33 | 1,696 | 0 | 2 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2012 | 7–19 | 26.9% | #183 | 1,509 | 0 | 2 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2013 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #238 | 1,535 | 0 | 2 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2014 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #71 | 1,555 | 0 | 2 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2015 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #105 | 1,537 | 0 | 2 | 2010 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #11 | 1,844 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2016 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #624 | 1,480 | 0 | 2 | 2011 | 33–17 | 66.0% | #5 | 1,868 | 1 | 5 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 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 |