H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Mirjana Lucic-Baroni vs Na Li H2H: 0-1
Na Li holds a 1–0 lead over Mirjana Lucic-Baroni in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Na Li leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Na Li won the 2013 Stuttgart fourth round 6-1 6-2.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
CRO
Age 44
Right-Handed
181 cm / 5'11"
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 26, 2013* | Stuttgart | WTA 500 | R16 | Clay | Na Li | 6-1 6-2 | Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | #424 | #20 | 1,924 | 1,798 | 136 | 166 | 45.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| 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 | Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | Na Li | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1997 | 11–3 | 78.6% | #49 | 1,692 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1998 | 15–11 | 57.7% | #51 | 1,776 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1999 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #48 | 1,757 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2000 | 2–12 | 14.3% | #202 | 1,601 | 0 | 2 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2001 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #192 | 1,596 | 0 | 2 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2002 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #203 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2003 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #348 | 1,526 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2007 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #455 | 1,538 | 0 | 2 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #258 | 1,519 | 0 | 2 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2010 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #96 | 1,554 | 0 | 2 | 2010 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #11 | 1,844 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2011 | 8–14 | 36.4% | #129 | 1,551 | 0 | 2 | 2011 | 33–17 | 66.0% | #5 | 1,868 | 1 | 5 |
| 30 | 2012 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #105 | 1,535 | 0 | 2 | 2012 | 43–16 | 72.9% | #7 | 2,016 | 1 | 6 |
| 31 | 2013 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #110 | 1,563 | 0 | 2 | 2013 | 46–14 | 76.7% | #3 | 2,077 | 1 | 7 |
| 32 | 2014 | 12–8 | 60.0% | #60 | 1,706 | 0 | 3 | 2014 | 29–7 | 80.6% | #9 | 2,031 | 2 | 9 |
| 33 | 2015 | 17–26 | 39.5% | #68 | 1,657 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2016 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #80 | 1,629 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2017 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #32 | 1,698 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2018 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #327 | 1,689 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |