H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Na Li vs Lourdes Domínguez Lino H2H: 2-0
Na Li holds a 2–0 lead over Lourdes Domínguez Lino in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Na Li leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Na Li won the 2011 Rome 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
–
0
2 main draw meetings
ESP
Age 45
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 12, 2011* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R32 | Clay | Na Li | 6-4 6-2 | Lourdes Domínguez Lino | Match data |
| Jan 18, 2007* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Na Li | 6-0 6-2 | Lourdes Domínguez Lino | 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 |
| Lourdes Domínguez Lino | #1,129 | #40 | 1,305 | 1,674 | 125 | 157 | 44.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
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 | Lourdes Domínguez Lino | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2000 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #141 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #378 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2002 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #390 | 1,518 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 | 2003 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #319 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 | 2004 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #208 | 1,508 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 6–4 | 60.0% | #72 | 1,553 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 21–19 | 52.5% | #52 | 1,622 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 | 2007 | 16–21 | 43.2% | #71 | 1,558 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 | 2008 | 6–11 | 35.3% | #91 | 1,521 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2010 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #11 | 1,844 | 0 | 3 | 2009 | 6–13 | 31.6% | #134 | 1,484 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2011 | 33–17 | 66.0% | #5 | 1,868 | 1 | 5 | 2010 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #85 | 1,493 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2012 | 43–16 | 72.9% | #7 | 2,016 | 1 | 6 | 2011 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #79 | 1,583 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | 2013 | 46–14 | 76.7% | #3 | 2,077 | 1 | 7 | 2012 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #48 | 1,653 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | 2014 | 29–7 | 80.6% | #9 | 2,031 | 2 | 9 | 2013 | 17–22 | 43.6% | #69 | 1,620 | 0 | 2 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 7–11 | 38.9% | #110 | 1,570 | 0 | 2 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #100 | 1,552 | 0 | 2 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2016 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #220 | 1,517 | 0 | 2 |