H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Timea Bacsinszky vs Na Li H2H: 1-1
Timea Bacsinszky and Na Li are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Na Li leads 1–0 on clay, while Timea Bacsinszky leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Timea Bacsinszky won the 2010 Miami second round 6-4 4-6 7-6(3).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
SUI
Age 37
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
CHN
Age 44
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 24, 2010* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Timea Bacsinszky | 6-4 4-6 7-6(3) | Na Li | Match data |
| May 28, 2009* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R64 | Clay | Na Li | 6-1 6-4 | Timea Bacsinszky | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Timea Bacsinszky | #941 | #9 | 3,157 | 1,933 | 161 | 137 | 54.0% | 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 | Timea Bacsinszky | Na Li | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 2004 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #252 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2006 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #124 | 1,541 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2007 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #122 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2008 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #54 | 1,592 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2009 | 17–10 | 63.0% | #53 | 1,739 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2010 | 19–21 | 47.5% | #50 | 1,693 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2011 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #247 | 1,662 | 0 | 1 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2012 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #179 | 1,602 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2013 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #237 | 1,596 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2014 | 11–10 | 52.4% | #48 | 1,678 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2015 | 37–14 | 72.5% | #12 | 1,842 | 0 | 3 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2016 | 32–17 | 65.3% | #15 | 1,777 | 0 | 4 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2017 | 15–9 | 62.5% | #39 | 1,816 | 0 | 4 | 2010 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #11 | 1,844 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2018 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #191 | 1,725 | 0 | 4 | 2011 | 33–17 | 66.0% | #5 | 1,868 | 1 | 5 |
| 30 | 2019 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #139 | 1,630 | 0 | 4 | 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 |