H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Na Li vs Maria Vento-Kabchi H2H: 1-0
Na Li holds a 1–0 lead over Maria Vento-Kabchi in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Na Li leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Na Li won the 2005 Toronto third round 6-4 6-7(5) 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
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
VEN
Age 52
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 15, 2005 | Toronto | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Na Li | 6-4 6-7(5) 6-2 | Maria Vento-Kabchi | Match data |
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 Vento-Kabchi | #996 | #26 | 1,053 | 1,716 | 95 | 156 | 37.8% | 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 Vento-Kabchi | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1992 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #551 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1994 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #166 | 1,520 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #86 | 1,551 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 | 1996 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #139 | 1,504 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 | 1997 | 11–7 | 61.1% | #51 | 1,629 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 | 1998 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #43 | 1,653 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 | 1999 | 3–16 | 15.8% | #110 | 1,535 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 | 2000 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #104 | 1,537 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 | 2001 | 4–7 | 36.4% | #155 | 1,534 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2010 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #11 | 1,844 | 0 | 3 | 2002 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #172 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2011 | 33–17 | 66.0% | #5 | 1,868 | 1 | 5 | 2003 | 15–8 | 65.2% | #44 | 1,714 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2012 | 43–16 | 72.9% | #7 | 2,016 | 1 | 6 | 2004 | 18–26 | 40.9% | #48 | 1,628 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2013 | 46–14 | 76.7% | #3 | 2,077 | 1 | 7 | 2005 | 13–23 | 36.1% | #62 | 1,573 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | 2014 | 29–7 | 80.6% | #9 | 2,031 | 2 | 9 | 2006 | 2–12 | 14.3% | #324 | 1,461 | 0 | 0 |