H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Na Li vs Anna Chakvetadze H2H: 2-3
Anna Chakvetadze holds a 3–2 lead over Na Li in their WTA head-to-head. Across 5 main-draw meetings, Anna Chakvetadze leads 3–1 on hard courts, while Na Li leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Anna Chakvetadze won the 2010 Moscow third round 6-4 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.
CHN
Age 44
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H
2
–
3
5 main draw meetings
RUS
Age 39
Right-Handed
171 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 21, 2010* | Moscow | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Anna Chakvetadze | 6-4 6-2 | Na Li | Match data |
| Feb 21, 2008* | Doha | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Na Li | 7-6(7) 6-4 | Anna Chakvetadze | Match data |
| Mar 24, 2007* | Miami | WTA 1000 | QF | Hard | Anna Chakvetadze | 4-6 7-5 6-2 | Na Li | Match data |
| May 31, 2006* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R64 | Clay | Na Li | 7-5 6-3 | Anna Chakvetadze | Match data |
| Aug 10, 2005* | Los Angeles | WTA 500 | R64 | Hard | Anna Chakvetadze | 7-5 6-4 | Na Li | 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 |
| Anna Chakvetadze | #577 | #5 | 2,940 | 2,067 | 183 | 135 | 57.5% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 8 |
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 | Anna Chakvetadze | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #83 | 1,526 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 24–21 | 53.3% | #32 | 1,716 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 37–20 | 64.9% | #13 | 1,936 | 0 | 2 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 56–19 | 74.7% | #6 | 1,984 | 0 | 6 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 26–23 | 53.1% | #18 | 1,721 | 0 | 7 |
| 22 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #67 | 1,711 | 0 | 7 |
| 23 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 18–15 | 54.5% | #56 | 1,715 | 0 | 8 |
| 24 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #234 | 1,641 | 0 | 8 |
| 25 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #224 | 1,557 | 0 | 8 |
| 26 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2010 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #11 | 1,844 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |