H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Na Li vs Maria Elena Camerin H2H: 1-1
Na Li and Maria Elena Camerin are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Maria Elena Camerin leads 1–0 on clay, while Na Li leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Na Li won the 2008 Australian Open second round 6-4 6-3.
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
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
ITA
Age 44
Right-Handed
164 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 17, 2008* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Na Li | 6-4 6-3 | Maria Elena Camerin | Match data |
| May 10, 2007* | Berlin | WTA 1000 | R32 | Clay | Maria Elena Camerin | 4-6 6-3 6-3 | 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 |
| Maria Elena Camerin | #817 | #41 | 774 | 1,666 | 97 | 147 | 39.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Maria Elena Camerin | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2001 | 6–5 | 54.5% | #112 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2002 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #123 | 1,525 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2003 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #100 | 1,495 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 | 2004 | 21–19 | 52.5% | #43 | 1,657 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 11–22 | 33.3% | #99 | 1,563 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 22–23 | 48.9% | #50 | 1,611 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 9–18 | 33.3% | #100 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 | 2008 | 5–11 | 31.2% | #104 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 | 2009 | 5–14 | 26.3% | #114 | 1,475 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2010 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #11 | 1,844 | 0 | 3 | 2010 | 6–11 | 35.3% | #111 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2011 | 33–17 | 66.0% | #5 | 1,868 | 1 | 5 | 2011 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #177 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2012 | 43–16 | 72.9% | #7 | 2,016 | 1 | 6 | 2012 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #168 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2013 | 46–14 | 76.7% | #3 | 2,077 | 1 | 7 | 2013 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #192 | 1,520 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | 2014 | 29–7 | 80.6% | #9 | 2,031 | 2 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |