H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Na Li vs Vania King H2H: 1-0
Na Li holds a 1–0 lead over Vania King 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 Indian Wells third round 6-2 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
–
0
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 37
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 9, 2006* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Na Li | 6-2 6-4 | Vania King | 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 |
| Vania King | #824 | #50 | 1,225 | 1,760 | 128 | 160 | 44.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
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 | Vania King | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #164 | 1,520 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #60 | 1,661 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #109 | 1,608 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 7–19 | 26.9% | #128 | 1,512 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #80 | 1,588 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #86 | 1,595 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #76 | 1,689 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #69 | 1,614 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #85 | 1,630 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #111 | 1,641 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #410 | 1,627 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 13–11 | 54.2% | #78 | 1,643 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2010 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #11 | 1,844 | 0 | 3 | 2017 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #492 | 1,590 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2011 | 33–17 | 66.0% | #5 | 1,868 | 1 | 5 | 2018 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #356 | 1,559 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |