H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Na Li vs Mary Pierce H2H: 1-0
Na Li holds a 1–0 lead over Mary Pierce 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 2006 US Open third round 4-6 6-0 6-0.
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
FRA
Age 51
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 2, 2006* | US Open | Grand Slam | R32 | Hard | Na Li | 4-6 6-0 6-0 | Mary Pierce | 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 |
| Mary Pierce | #560 | #3 | 3,797 | 2,137 | 460 | 215 | 68.1% | 2 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 8 | 18 |
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 | Mary Pierce | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1989 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,480 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1990 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #107 | 1,543 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1991 | 21–9 | 70.0% | #26 | 1,786 | 0 | 1 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1992 | 31–9 | 77.5% | #13 | 1,901 | 0 | 4 |
| 18 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 38–15 | 71.7% | #12 | 2,003 | 0 | 5 |
| 19 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 43–16 | 72.9% | #5 | 2,053 | 0 | 5 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 35–14 | 71.4% | #5 | 2,008 | 1 | 7 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1996 | 17–11 | 60.7% | #24 | 1,899 | 1 | 7 |
| 22 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 | 1997 | 45–15 | 75.0% | #7 | 2,053 | 1 | 8 |
| 23 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 | 1998 | 35–12 | 74.5% | #7 | 2,120 | 1 | 12 |
| 24 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 | 1999 | 45–19 | 70.3% | #5 | 2,053 | 1 | 13 |
| 25 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 | 2000 | 29–11 | 72.5% | #7 | 2,033 | 2 | 15 |
| 26 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 | 2001 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #129 | 1,839 | 2 | 15 |
| 27 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 | 2002 | 14–13 | 51.9% | #52 | 1,752 | 2 | 15 |
| 28 | 2010 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #11 | 1,844 | 0 | 3 | 2003 | 23–17 | 57.5% | #33 | 1,786 | 2 | 15 |
| 29 | 2011 | 33–17 | 66.0% | #5 | 1,868 | 1 | 5 | 2004 | 22–16 | 57.9% | #29 | 1,754 | 2 | 16 |
| 30 | 2012 | 43–16 | 72.9% | #7 | 2,016 | 1 | 6 | 2005 | 41–12 | 77.4% | #5 | 2,119 | 2 | 18 |
| 31 | 2013 | 46–14 | 76.7% | #3 | 2,077 | 1 | 7 | 2006 | 9–8 | 52.9% | #79 | 1,967 | 2 | 18 |
| 32 | 2014 | 29–7 | 80.6% | #9 | 2,031 | 2 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |