H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Na Li vs Saori Obata H2H: 0-1
Saori Obata holds a 1–0 lead over Na Li in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Saori Obata leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Saori Obata won the 2001 Shanghai third round 6-2 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
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
JPN
Age 48
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 11, 2001* | Shanghai | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Saori Obata | 6-2 6-2 | 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 |
| Saori Obata | #659 | #39 | 836 | 1,666 | 42 | 76 | 35.6% | 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 | Saori Obata | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1996 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #300 | 1,469 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #228 | 1,455 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1998 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #216 | 1,440 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1999 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #455 | 1,431 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 | 2000 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #174 | 1,458 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 | 2001 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #94 | 1,513 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 | 2002 | 3–14 | 17.6% | #126 | 1,462 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 | 2003 | 18–17 | 51.4% | #49 | 1,641 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 | 2004 | 8–18 | 30.8% | #109 | 1,497 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 | 2005 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #110 | 1,502 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2010 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #11 | 1,844 | 0 | 3 | 2006 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #289 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |