H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Marina Erakovic vs Na Li H2H: 0-1
Na Li holds a 1–0 lead over Marina Erakovic in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Na Li leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Na Li won the 2010 Australian Open first round 6-2 6-0.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
NZL
Age 38
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 20, 2010* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Na Li | 6-2 6-0 | Marina Erakovic | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marina Erakovic | #827 | #39 | 1,392 | 1,701 | 105 | 131 | 44.5% | 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 | Marina Erakovic | Na Li | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #213 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2007 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #153 | 1,457 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2008 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #66 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2009 | 4–7 | 36.4% | #227 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2010 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #333 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2011 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #61 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2012 | 19–20 | 48.7% | #66 | 1,600 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2013 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #46 | 1,673 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2014 | 12–20 | 37.5% | #76 | 1,609 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2015 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #135 | 1,543 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2016 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #106 | 1,625 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #11 | 1,844 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2017 | 1–9 | 10.0% | #197 | 1,551 | 0 | 1 | 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 |