H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Na Li vs Stephanie Foretz Gacon H2H: 1-0
Na Li holds a 1–0 lead over Stephanie Foretz Gacon in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Na Li leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Na Li won the 2012 Roland Garros second round 6-0 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
Age 45
Right-Handed
166 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 30, 2012* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R64 | Clay | Na Li | 6-0 6-2 | Stephanie Foretz Gacon | 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 |
| Stephanie Foretz Gacon | — | — | — | 1,647 | 61 | 115 | 34.7% | 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 | Stephanie Foretz Gacon | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1999 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,513 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2001 | 5–6 | 45.5% | — | 1,558 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2002 | 11–12 | 47.8% | — | 1,605 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 | 2003 | 12–15 | 44.4% | — | 1,588 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 | 2004 | 3–10 | 23.1% | — | 1,532 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 5–14 | 26.3% | — | 1,501 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 5–14 | 26.3% | — | 1,444 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 | 2007 | 2–6 | 25.0% | — | 1,457 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 | 2008 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,455 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2010 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #11 | 1,844 | 0 | 3 | 2009 | 2–7 | 22.2% | — | 1,421 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2011 | 33–17 | 66.0% | #5 | 1,868 | 1 | 5 | 2010 | 0–3 | 0.0% | — | 1,402 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2012 | 43–16 | 72.9% | #7 | 2,016 | 1 | 6 | 2011 | 2–6 | 25.0% | — | 1,406 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2013 | 46–14 | 76.7% | #3 | 2,077 | 1 | 7 | 2012 | 10–10 | 50.0% | — | 1,514 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | 2014 | 29–7 | 80.6% | #9 | 2,031 | 2 | 9 | 2013 | 2–5 | 28.6% | — | 1,502 | 0 | 0 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |