H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 04:32 UTC
Tatjana Maria vs Na Li H2H: 1-0
Tatjana Maria holds a 1–0 lead over Na Li in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Tatjana Maria leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Tatjana Maria won the 2010 Kuala Lumpur third round 6-1 5-7 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.
GER
Age 38
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
CHN
Age 44
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 25, 2010* | Kuala Lumpur | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Tatjana Maria | 6-1 5-7 6-2 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tatjana Maria | #76 | #41 | 1,320 | 1,810 | 164 | 254 | 39.2% | 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 | Tatjana Maria | Na Li | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 2006 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #136 | 1,481 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2007 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #89 | 1,452 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2008 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #223 | 1,423 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2009 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #71 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2010 | 8–16 | 33.3% | #137 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2011 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #203 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2012 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #112 | 1,473 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2013 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #268 | 1,437 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2014 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #160 | 1,446 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2015 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #74 | 1,478 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2016 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #115 | 1,470 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #11 | 1,844 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2017 | 14–16 | 46.7% | #47 | 1,567 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 33–17 | 66.0% | #5 | 1,868 | 1 | 5 |
| 30 | 2018 | 12–22 | 35.3% | #72 | 1,637 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 43–16 | 72.9% | #7 | 2,016 | 1 | 6 |
| 31 | 2019 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #86 | 1,575 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 46–14 | 76.7% | #3 | 2,077 | 1 | 7 |
| 32 | 2020 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #109 | 1,586 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 29–7 | 80.6% | #9 | 2,031 | 2 | 9 |
| 34 | 2022 | 17–11 | 60.7% | #68 | 1,641 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2023 | 24–25 | 49.0% | #54 | 1,715 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2024 | 13–26 | 33.3% | #86 | 1,581 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 2025 | 14–19 | 42.4% | #45 | 1,638 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2026 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #76 | 1,810 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |