H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Na Li vs Jill Craybas H2H: 0-1
Jill Craybas holds a 1–0 lead over Na Li in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Jill Craybas leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Jill Craybas won the 2005 Beijing third round 4-6 7-6(4) 7-5.
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
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 52
Right-Handed
160 cm / 5'3"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 22, 2005* | Beijing | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Jill Craybas | 4-6 7-6(4) 7-5 | 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 |
| Jill Craybas | #336 | #39 | 974 | 1,695 | 161 | 256 | 38.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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 | Jill Craybas | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1996 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 23 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 | 1998 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #154 | 1,473 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 | 1999 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #175 | 1,445 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #145 | 1,449 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 | 2001 | 8–17 | 32.0% | #98 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 | 2002 | 19–15 | 55.9% | #57 | 1,652 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2010 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #11 | 1,844 | 0 | 3 | 2003 | 16–22 | 42.1% | #99 | 1,568 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2011 | 33–17 | 66.0% | #5 | 1,868 | 1 | 5 | 2004 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #59 | 1,499 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2012 | 43–16 | 72.9% | #7 | 2,016 | 1 | 6 | 2005 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #48 | 1,614 | 0 | 1 |
| 31 | 2013 | 46–14 | 76.7% | #3 | 2,077 | 1 | 7 | 2006 | 18–25 | 41.9% | #70 | 1,569 | 0 | 1 |
| 32 | 2014 | 29–7 | 80.6% | #9 | 2,031 | 2 | 9 | 2007 | 12–27 | 30.8% | #79 | 1,472 | 0 | 1 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 22–25 | 46.8% | #64 | 1,575 | 0 | 1 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #76 | 1,592 | 0 | 1 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #98 | 1,546 | 0 | 1 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 6–20 | 23.1% | #150 | 1,442 | 0 | 1 |
| 37 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #189 | 1,449 | 0 | 1 |
| 38 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #336 | 1,451 | 0 | 1 |