H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Anabel Medina Garrigues vs Anna Smashnova H2H: 0-3
Anna Smashnova holds a 3–0 lead over Anabel Medina Garrigues in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Anna Smashnova leads 2–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Anna Smashnova won the 2002 Auckland quarterfinal 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.
ESP
Age 43
Right-Handed
169 cm / 5'7"
H2H
0
–
3
3 main draw meetings
ISR
Age 50
Right-Handed
157 cm / 5'2"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 5, 2002* | Auckland | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Anna Smashnova | 6-2 6-2 | Anabel Medina Garrigues | Match data |
| May 3, 2001* | Bol | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Anna Smashnova | 2-6 7-6(3) 6-4 | Anabel Medina Garrigues | Match data |
| Jul 14, 2000* | Palermo | WTA 250 | R16 | Clay | Anna Smashnova | 4-6 6-3 6-0 | Anabel Medina Garrigues | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anabel Medina Garrigues | #741 | #16 | 2,505 | 1,852 | 310 | 275 | 53.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 8 | 11 |
| Anna Smashnova | #994 | #15 | 1,616 | 1,882 | 242 | 221 | 52.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 12 |
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 | Anabel Medina Garrigues | Anna Smashnova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1991 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #264 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1992 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #236 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1993 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #139 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2000 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #109 | 1,494 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #47 | 1,599 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2001 | 16–20 | 44.4% | #66 | 1,563 | 0 | 1 | 1995 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #68 | 1,574 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2002 | 9–3 | 75.0% | #116 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 | 1996 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #132 | 1,560 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2003 | 13–12 | 52.0% | #71 | 1,613 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2004 | 25–22 | 53.2% | #39 | 1,716 | 0 | 2 | 1998 | 12–14 | 46.2% | #49 | 1,582 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2005 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #33 | 1,747 | 0 | 4 | 1999 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #47 | 1,637 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2006 | 34–24 | 58.6% | #27 | 1,690 | 0 | 6 | 2000 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #46 | 1,668 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 2007 | 25–22 | 53.2% | #34 | 1,694 | 0 | 7 | 2001 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #88 | 1,605 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 2008 | 41–24 | 63.1% | #22 | 1,833 | 0 | 8 | 2002 | 43–25 | 63.2% | #16 | 1,793 | 0 | 6 |
| 26 | 2009 | 33–26 | 55.9% | #27 | 1,683 | 0 | 9 | 2003 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #16 | 1,857 | 0 | 8 |
| 27 | 2010 | 18–25 | 41.9% | #71 | 1,565 | 0 | 9 | 2004 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #32 | 1,732 | 0 | 9 |
| 28 | 2011 | 35–21 | 62.5% | #27 | 1,774 | 0 | 11 | 2005 | 24–16 | 60.0% | #43 | 1,745 | 0 | 11 |
| 29 | 2012 | 23–25 | 47.9% | #50 | 1,629 | 0 | 11 | 2006 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #63 | 1,700 | 0 | 12 |
| 30 | 2013 | 8–19 | 29.6% | #100 | 1,553 | 0 | 11 | 2007 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #921 | 1,648 | 0 | 12 |
| 31 | 2014 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #452 | 1,501 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |