H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Na Li vs Tamarine Tanasugarn H2H: 1-1
Na Li and Tamarine Tanasugarn are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Na Li won the 2009 Indian Wells first round 6-4 6-4.
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
–
1
2 main draw meetings
THA
Age 49
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 10, 2009* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R128 | Hard | Na Li | 6-4 6-4 | Tamarine Tanasugarn | Match data |
| Oct 18, 2000* | Shanghai | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Tamarine Tanasugarn | 7-5 6-1 | 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 |
| Tamarine Tanasugarn | #947 | #19 | 1,508 | 1,818 | 267 | 273 | 49.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
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 | Tamarine Tanasugarn | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1993 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #407 | 1,482 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1994 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #227 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #213 | 1,478 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 9–5 | 64.3% | #75 | 1,609 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1997 | 18–20 | 47.4% | #47 | 1,647 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1998 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #37 | 1,701 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 | 1999 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #71 | 1,634 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 | 2000 | 30–18 | 62.5% | #28 | 1,787 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 | 2001 | 24–21 | 53.3% | #29 | 1,697 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 | 2002 | 32–26 | 55.2% | #28 | 1,676 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 | 2003 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #34 | 1,694 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 | 2004 | 19–24 | 44.2% | #66 | 1,623 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2010 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #11 | 1,844 | 0 | 3 | 2005 | 7–16 | 30.4% | #122 | 1,503 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2011 | 33–17 | 66.0% | #5 | 1,868 | 1 | 5 | 2006 | 9–7 | 56.2% | #72 | 1,588 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2012 | 43–16 | 72.9% | #7 | 2,016 | 1 | 6 | 2007 | 9–18 | 33.3% | #117 | 1,570 | 0 | 1 |
| 31 | 2013 | 46–14 | 76.7% | #3 | 2,077 | 1 | 7 | 2008 | 19–15 | 55.9% | #37 | 1,702 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | 2014 | 29–7 | 80.6% | #9 | 2,031 | 2 | 9 | 2009 | 10–12 | 45.5% | #101 | 1,653 | 0 | 3 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 14–9 | 60.9% | #62 | 1,734 | 0 | 4 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 4–10 | 28.6% | #94 | 1,649 | 0 | 4 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 4–7 | 36.4% | #152 | 1,594 | 0 | 4 |
| 38 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #855 | 1,577 | 0 | 4 |