H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Na Li vs Virginie Razzano H2H: 2-0
Na Li holds a 2–0 lead over Virginie Razzano in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Na Li leads 1–0 on grass and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Na Li won the 2011 Sydney fourth round 6-4 1-6 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
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
FRA
Age 43
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 14, 2011* | Sydney | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Na Li | 6-4 1-6 6-4 | Virginie Razzano | Match data |
| Jun 28, 2006* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R128 | Grass | Na Li | 6-2 6-0 | Virginie Razzano | 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 |
| Virginie Razzano | #1,226 | #16 | 2,420 | 1,876 | 200 | 216 | 48.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
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 | Virginie Razzano | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1999 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #344 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2000 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #143 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 10–12 | 45.5% | #87 | 1,589 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #76 | 1,662 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2003 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #72 | 1,613 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 7–8 | 46.7% | #60 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 16–22 | 42.1% | #51 | 1,608 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #88 | 1,595 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 34–20 | 63.0% | #28 | 1,805 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 14–20 | 41.2% | #58 | 1,633 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 | 2009 | 31–20 | 60.8% | #19 | 1,801 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 | 2010 | 9–15 | 37.5% | #113 | 1,660 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2010 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #11 | 1,844 | 0 | 3 | 2011 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #83 | 1,681 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2011 | 33–17 | 66.0% | #5 | 1,868 | 1 | 5 | 2012 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #160 | 1,633 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 2012 | 43–16 | 72.9% | #7 | 2,016 | 1 | 6 | 2013 | 9–8 | 52.9% | #99 | 1,683 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | 2013 | 46–14 | 76.7% | #3 | 2,077 | 1 | 7 | 2014 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #165 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | 2014 | 29–7 | 80.6% | #9 | 2,031 | 2 | 9 | 2015 | 4–2 | 66.7% | #200 | 1,657 | 0 | 2 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2016 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #169 | 1,647 | 0 | 2 |