H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Na Li vs Vera Dushevina H2H: 4-0
Na Li holds a 4–0 lead over Vera Dushevina in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Na Li leads 3–0 on hard courts and 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Na Li won the 2009 Tokyo third round 7-5 6-0.
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
4
–
0
4 main draw meetings
RUS
Age 39
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 1, 2009* | Tokyo | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Na Li | 7-5 6-0 | Vera Dushevina | Match data |
| May 25, 2007* | Strasbourg | WTA 500 | R16 | Clay | Na Li | 6-2 6-3 | Vera Dushevina | Match data |
| Sep 21, 2006* | Beijing | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Na Li | 6-3 6-4 | Vera Dushevina | Match data |
| Sep 30, 2004* | Guangzhou | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Na Li | 6-4 6-1 | Vera Dushevina | 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 |
| Vera Dushevina | #741 | #31 | 1,490 | 1,786 | 143 | 172 | 45.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 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 | Vera Dushevina | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2002 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #473 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2003 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #113 | 1,552 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 12–16 | 42.9% | #63 | 1,590 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 19–19 | 50.0% | #40 | 1,657 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 12–22 | 35.3% | #97 | 1,609 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 19–15 | 55.9% | #40 | 1,747 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 12–17 | 41.4% | #89 | 1,681 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 24–18 | 57.1% | #43 | 1,762 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 19–19 | 50.0% | #54 | 1,757 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 12–17 | 41.4% | #86 | 1,724 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 5–15 | 25.0% | #146 | 1,534 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 | 2013 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #124 | 1,554 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #463 | 1,541 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |