H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Rita Grande vs Fang Li H2H: 4-1
Rita Grande holds a 4–1 lead over Fang Li in their WTA head-to-head. Across 5 main-draw meetings, Rita Grande leads 3–1 on hard courts and 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Rita Grande won the 2001 Indian Wells first round 6-2 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.
ITA
Age 51
Right-Handed
177 cm / 5'10"
H2H
4
–
1
5 main draw meetings
CHN
Right-Handed
166 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 9, 2001* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R128 | Hard | Rita Grande | 6-2 6-2 | Fang Li | Match data |
| Jan 22, 1999* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Rita Grande | 6-2 6-4 | Fang Li | Match data |
| Jun 24, 1998* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R128 | Grass | Rita Grande | 6-1 6-4 | Fang Li | Match data |
| Jan 6, 1996* | Auckland | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Fang Li | 2-6 7-5 6-3 | Rita Grande | Match data |
| Jan 13, 1994* | Hobart | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Rita Grande | 6-4 3-6 6-2 | Fang 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rita Grande | #1,172 | #24 | 1,020 | 1,755 | 172 | 218 | 44.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Fang Li | #488 | #36 | 723 | 1,705 | 67 | 89 | 42.9% | 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.
| Rita Grande | Fang Li | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 1991 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #370 | 1,471 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #119 | 1,547 | 0 | 0 |
| 1993 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #186 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #132 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 |
| 1994 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #146 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #67 | 1,609 | 0 | 0 |
| 1995 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #72 | 1,591 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 9–8 | 52.9% | #93 | 1,613 | 0 | 0 |
| 1996 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #71 | 1,627 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #199 | 1,585 | 0 | 0 |
| 1997 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #44 | 1,676 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #69 | 1,594 | 0 | 0 |
| 1998 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #59 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #40 | 1,676 | 0 | 0 |
| 1999 | 21–18 | 53.8% | #54 | 1,679 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #86 | 1,585 | 0 | 0 |
| 2000 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,602 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #503 | 1,541 | 0 | 0 |
| 2001 | 35–26 | 57.4% | #24 | 1,742 | 0 | 2 | 2001 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #488 | 1,500 | 0 | 0 |
| 2002 | 21–27 | 43.8% | #46 | 1,641 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2003 | 14–25 | 35.9% | #70 | 1,534 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2004 | 12–18 | 40.0% | #104 | 1,536 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2005 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1088 | 1,518 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |