H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Na Li vs Nicole Vaidisova H2H: 3-0
Na Li holds a 3–0 lead over Nicole Vaidisova in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Na Li leads 2–0 on hard courts and 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Na Li won the 2008 Stuttgart third round 6-1 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
3
–
0
3 main draw meetings
CZE
Age 37
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 2, 2008* | Stuttgart | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Na Li | 6-1 6-2 | Nicole Vaidisova | Match data |
| Jan 5, 2008* | Gold Coast | WTA 500 | QF | Hard | Na Li | 6-3 6-3 | Nicole Vaidisova | Match data |
| Jul 4, 2006* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R16 | Grass | Na Li | 4-6 6-1 6-3 | Nicole Vaidisova | 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 |
| Nicole Vaidisova | #832 | #7 | 1,981 | 1,997 | 155 | 84 | 64.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 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 | Nicole Vaidisova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 14–5 | 73.7% | #75 | 1,674 | 0 | 2 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 45–14 | 76.3% | #15 | 1,948 | 0 | 5 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #10 | 1,916 | 0 | 6 |
| 18 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 35–14 | 71.4% | #12 | 1,946 | 0 | 6 |
| 19 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 17–18 | 48.6% | #41 | 1,711 | 0 | 6 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #175 | 1,578 | 0 | 6 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #666 | 1,579 | 0 | 6 |
| 22 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 23 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 25 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 26 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #261 | 1,566 | 0 | 6 |
| 27 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |