H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Na Li vs Kimiko Date Krumm H2H: 0-1
Kimiko Date Krumm holds a 1–0 lead over Na Li in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Kimiko Date Krumm leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Kimiko Date Krumm won the 2010 Tournament of Champions quarterfinal 6-4 3-6 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
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
Age 55
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 7, 2010* | Tournament of Champions | WTA Finals | QF | Hard | Kimiko Date Krumm | 6-4 3-6 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 |
| Kimiko Date Krumm | — | — | — | 2,091 | 241 | 188 | 56.2% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 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 | Kimiko Date Krumm | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1989 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 10–7 | 58.8% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1991 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,725 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1992 | 26–13 | 66.7% | — | 1,867 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 | 1993 | 25–11 | 69.4% | — | 1,956 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 | 1994 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,987 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 | 1995 | 39–12 | 76.5% | — | 2,029 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 | 1996 | 31–13 | 70.5% | — | 2,071 | 0 | 7 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 2,042 | 0 | 7 |
| 38 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 6–11 | 35.3% | — | 1,841 | 0 | 8 |
| 39 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 19–18 | 51.4% | — | 1,814 | 0 | 8 |
| 40 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 7–24 | 22.6% | — | 1,567 | 0 | 8 |
| 41 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 2–14 | 12.5% | — | 1,454 | 0 | 8 |
| 42 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 12–15 | 44.4% | — | 1,575 | 0 | 8 |
| 43 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 11–14 | 44.0% | — | 1,597 | 0 | 8 |
| 44 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 3–6 | 33.3% | — | 1,574 | 0 | 8 |
| 46 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,564 | 0 | 8 |