H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Na Li vs Akgul Amanmuradova H2H: 1-0
Na Li holds a 1–0 lead over Akgul Amanmuradova in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Na Li leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Na Li won the 2012 Stuttgart fourth round 6-4 6-4.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
CHN
Age 44
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
UZB
Age 42
Right-Handed
190 cm / 6'3"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 27, 2012* | Stuttgart | WTA 500 | R16 | Clay | Na Li | 6-4 6-4 | Akgul Amanmuradova | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Na Li | #9 | #2 | 7,585 | 2,124 | 334 | 155 | 68.3% | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 9 |
| Akgul Amanmuradova | #1,097 | #50 | 1,031 | 1,631 | 61 | 101 | 37.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Na Li | Akgul Amanmuradova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,481 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #607 | 1,471 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #307 | 1,464 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #380 | 1,450 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 5–3 | 62.5% | #197 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #204 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 8–8 | 50.0% | #96 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #82 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #85 | 1,542 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 | 2010 | 11–15 | 42.3% | #70 | 1,580 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 | 2011 | 6–17 | 26.1% | #114 | 1,494 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2010 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #11 | 1,844 | 0 | 3 | 2012 | 3–12 | 20.0% | #198 | 1,457 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2011 | 33–17 | 66.0% | #5 | 1,868 | 1 | 5 | 2013 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #227 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2012 | 43–16 | 72.9% | #7 | 2,016 | 1 | 6 | 2014 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #211 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2013 | 46–14 | 76.7% | #3 | 2,077 | 1 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2014 | 29–7 | 80.6% | #9 | 2,031 | 2 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #375 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2019 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #459 | 1,465 | 0 | 0 |