H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Na Li vs Maria Kirilenko H2H: 4-1
Na Li holds a 4–1 lead over Maria Kirilenko in their WTA head-to-head. Across 5 main-draw meetings, Na Li leads 3–1 on hard courts and 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Na Li won the 2011 New Haven fourth round 6-4 7-6(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
4
–
1
5 main draw meetings
RUS
Age 39
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 26, 2011* | New Haven | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Na Li | 6-4 7-6(4) | Maria Kirilenko | Match data |
| Sep 6, 2009* | US Open | Grand Slam | R32 | Hard | Na Li | 6-4 6-2 | Maria Kirilenko | Match data |
| May 9, 2007* | Berlin | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Na Li | 6-1 3-6 6-1 | Maria Kirilenko | Match data |
| Aug 24, 2006* | New Haven | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Na Li | 6-1 6-2 | Maria Kirilenko | Match data |
| Feb 12, 2005* | Hyderabad | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Maria Kirilenko | 6-4 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 Kirilenko | #947 | #10 | 3,471 | 1,910 | 282 | 228 | 55.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 |
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 Kirilenko | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2002 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #373 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2003 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #124 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 8–9 | 47.1% | #107 | 1,575 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 29–21 | 58.0% | #25 | 1,741 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 23–25 | 47.9% | #30 | 1,656 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 28–26 | 51.9% | #25 | 1,739 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 34–22 | 60.7% | #29 | 1,722 | 0 | 5 |
| 22 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 21–24 | 46.7% | #62 | 1,719 | 0 | 5 |
| 23 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 37–23 | 61.7% | #20 | 1,827 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 29–23 | 55.8% | #28 | 1,816 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #14 | 1,775 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 | 2013 | 34–18 | 65.4% | #19 | 1,786 | 0 | 6 |
| 27 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #187 | 1,698 | 0 | 6 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |