H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Sabine Lisicki vs Na Li H2H: 2-2
Sabine Lisicki and Na Li are tied 2–2 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Na Li leads 2–0 on hard courts, while Sabine Lisicki leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Na Li won the 2013 Beijing fourth round 7-5 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.
GER
Age 36
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H
2
–
2
4 main draw meetings
CHN
Age 44
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 4, 2013* | Beijing | WTA 1000 | R16 | Hard | Na Li | 7-5 6-4 | Sabine Lisicki | Match data |
| Mar 23, 2012* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R16 | Hard | Na Li | 3-6 6-4 6-2 | Sabine Lisicki | Match data |
| Jun 24, 2011* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R64 | Grass | Sabine Lisicki | 3-6 6-4 8-6 | Na Li | Match data |
| Apr 22, 2011* | Stuttgart | WTA 500 | R16 | Clay | Sabine Lisicki | 6-4 7-5 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sabine Lisicki | #502 | #12 | 3,251 | 1,940 | 206 | 172 | 54.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Na Li | #9 | #2 | 7,585 | 2,124 | 334 | 155 | 68.3% | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 9 |
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 | Sabine Lisicki | Na Li | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2006 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #444 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #198 | 1,475 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2008 | 16–18 | 47.1% | #57 | 1,606 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2009 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #22 | 1,792 | 0 | 1 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2010 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #175 | 1,658 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2011 | 35–13 | 72.9% | #15 | 1,872 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2012 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #37 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2013 | 34–19 | 64.2% | #15 | 1,824 | 0 | 3 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2014 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #26 | 1,798 | 0 | 4 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2015 | 22–19 | 53.7% | #32 | 1,791 | 0 | 4 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2016 | 14–19 | 42.4% | #93 | 1,647 | 0 | 4 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2017 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #220 | 1,636 | 0 | 4 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2018 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #199 | 1,549 | 0 | 4 | 2010 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #11 | 1,844 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2019 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #562 | 1,479 | 0 | 4 | 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 | 2022 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #342 | 1,575 | 0 | 4 | 2014 | 29–7 | 80.6% | #9 | 2,031 | 2 | 9 |
| 33 | 2023 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #311 | 1,569 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |