H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Anna Smashnova vs Amelie Cocheteux H2H: 2-1
Anna Smashnova holds a 2–1 lead over Amelie Cocheteux in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Anna Smashnova leads 2–0 on hard courts, while Amelie Cocheteux leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Anna Smashnova won the 2000 Hobart third round 2-6 7-5 6-1.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
ISR
Age 50
Right-Handed
157 cm / 5'2"
H2H
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
FRA
Age 48
Left-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 12, 2000* | Hobart | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Anna Smashnova | 2-6 7-5 6-1 | Amelie Cocheteux | Match data |
| Feb 25, 1999* | Paris | WTA 500 | R32 | Carpet | Amelie Cocheteux | 6-3 6-3 | Anna Smashnova | Match data |
| Aug 7, 1998* | Istanbul | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Anna Smashnova | 6-2 3-6 6-4 | Amelie Cocheteux | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anna Smashnova | #994 | #15 | 1,616 | 1,882 | 242 | 221 | 52.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 12 |
| Amelie Cocheteux | #365 | #55 | 552 | 1,596 | 28 | 53 | 34.6% | 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.
| Age | Anna Smashnova | Amelie Cocheteux | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1994 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #47 | 1,599 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #228 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1995 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #68 | 1,574 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #166 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1996 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #132 | 1,560 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #104 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1998 | 7–11 | 38.9% | #81 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1998 | 12–14 | 46.2% | #49 | 1,582 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #64 | 1,570 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1999 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #47 | 1,637 | 0 | 1 | 2000 | 4–17 | 19.0% | #180 | 1,453 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2000 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #46 | 1,668 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 2001 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #88 | 1,605 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 25 | 2002 | 43–25 | 63.2% | #16 | 1,793 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 26 | 2003 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #16 | 1,857 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2004 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #32 | 1,732 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2005 | 24–16 | 60.0% | #43 | 1,745 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2006 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #63 | 1,700 | 0 | 12 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2007 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #921 | 1,648 | 0 | 12 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |