H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Na Li vs Elena Likhovtseva H2H: 2-0
Na Li holds a 2–0 lead over Elena Likhovtseva in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Na Li leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Na Li won the 2008 Doha second round 6-1 0-6 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
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
RUS
Age 50
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 20, 2008* | Doha | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Na Li | 6-1 0-6 6-4 | Elena Likhovtseva | Match data |
| Feb 14, 2008* | Antwerp | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Na Li | 6-1 6-1 | Elena Likhovtseva | 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 |
| Elena Likhovtseva | #1,092 | #15 | 1,807 | 1,912 | 358 | 338 | 51.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
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 | Elena Likhovtseva | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1993 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #67 | 1,633 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 17–19 | 47.2% | #62 | 1,736 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 18–18 | 50.0% | #45 | 1,718 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1996 | 30–21 | 58.8% | #18 | 1,819 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1997 | 24–24 | 50.0% | #31 | 1,749 | 0 | 2 |
| 22 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 | 1998 | 35–29 | 54.7% | #26 | 1,829 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 | 1999 | 34–29 | 54.0% | #18 | 1,755 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 | 2000 | 29–27 | 51.8% | #21 | 1,770 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 | 2001 | 25–24 | 51.0% | #36 | 1,746 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 | 2002 | 24–27 | 47.1% | #42 | 1,666 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 | 2003 | 26–26 | 50.0% | #37 | 1,678 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2010 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #11 | 1,844 | 0 | 3 | 2004 | 26–24 | 52.0% | #24 | 1,828 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2011 | 33–17 | 66.0% | #5 | 1,868 | 1 | 5 | 2005 | 30–22 | 57.7% | #17 | 1,795 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2012 | 43–16 | 72.9% | #7 | 2,016 | 1 | 6 | 2006 | 16–20 | 44.4% | #43 | 1,695 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 2013 | 46–14 | 76.7% | #3 | 2,077 | 1 | 7 | 2007 | 13–17 | 43.3% | #62 | 1,665 | 0 | 3 |
| 32 | 2014 | 29–7 | 80.6% | #9 | 2,031 | 2 | 9 | 2008 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #1044 | 1,634 | 0 | 3 |