H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Kirsten Flipkens vs Na Li H2H: 0-1
Na Li holds a 1–0 lead over Kirsten Flipkens in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Na Li leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Na Li won the 2014 Madrid second round 6-1 7-6(7).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
BEL
Age 40
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H
0
–
1
1 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 7, 2014* | Madrid | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Na Li | 6-1 7-6(7) | Kirsten Flipkens | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kirsten Flipkens | #531 | #13 | 2,961 | 1,829 | 198 | 221 | 47.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 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 | Kirsten Flipkens | Na Li | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 2003 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #380 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2004 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #168 | 1,500 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2005 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #202 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2006 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #104 | 1,523 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2007 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #287 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2008 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #111 | 1,501 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2009 | 8–10 | 44.4% | #81 | 1,587 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2010 | 15–15 | 50.0% | #77 | 1,666 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2011 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #192 | 1,608 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2012 | 13–4 | 76.5% | #54 | 1,762 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2013 | 32–23 | 58.2% | #20 | 1,734 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2014 | 23–26 | 46.9% | #45 | 1,657 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #11 | 1,844 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2015 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #85 | 1,657 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 33–17 | 66.0% | #5 | 1,868 | 1 | 5 |
| 30 | 2016 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #65 | 1,642 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 43–16 | 72.9% | #7 | 2,016 | 1 | 6 |
| 31 | 2017 | 16–21 | 43.2% | #74 | 1,695 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 46–14 | 76.7% | #3 | 2,077 | 1 | 7 |
| 32 | 2018 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #47 | 1,660 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 29–7 | 80.6% | #9 | 2,031 | 2 | 9 |
| 33 | 2019 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #71 | 1,747 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2020 | 2–8 | 20.0% | #86 | 1,703 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2021 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #311 | 1,659 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2022 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #251 | 1,685 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |