H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Anna Smashnova vs Conchita Martínez H2H: 0-3
Conchita Martínez holds a 3–0 lead over Anna Smashnova in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Conchita Martínez leads 2–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Conchita Martínez won the 2005 Rome third round 3-6 6-1 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
0
–
3
3 main draw meetings
ESP
Age 54
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 12, 2005* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R32 | Clay | Conchita Martínez | 3-6 6-1 6-1 | Anna Smashnova | Match data |
| May 30, 1999* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R32 | Clay | Conchita Martínez | 6-2 7-5 | Anna Smashnova | Match data |
| Mar 21, 1998* | Key Biscayne | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Conchita Martínez | 6-4 6-2 | Anna Smashnova | 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 |
| Conchita Martínez | #1,498 | #2 | 3,180 | 2,263 | 669 | 275 | 70.9% | 1 | 9 | 0 | 4 | 19 | 33 |
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 | Conchita Martínez | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1988 | 14–6 | 70.0% | #41 | 1,730 | 0 | 1 |
| 17 | 1994 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #47 | 1,599 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 35–9 | 79.5% | #7 | 1,933 | 0 | 4 |
| 18 | 1995 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #68 | 1,574 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 38–10 | 79.2% | #11 | 2,063 | 0 | 7 |
| 19 | 1996 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #132 | 1,560 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 36–12 | 75.0% | #9 | 2,076 | 0 | 10 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1992 | 44–16 | 73.3% | #8 | 2,054 | 0 | 11 |
| 21 | 1998 | 12–14 | 46.2% | #49 | 1,582 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 66–13 | 83.5% | #4 | 2,158 | 0 | 16 |
| 22 | 1999 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #47 | 1,637 | 0 | 1 | 1994 | 51–14 | 78.5% | #3 | 2,065 | 1 | 20 |
| 23 | 2000 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #46 | 1,668 | 0 | 2 | 1995 | 57–10 | 85.1% | #2 | 2,182 | 1 | 26 |
| 24 | 2001 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #88 | 1,605 | 0 | 2 | 1996 | 44–16 | 73.3% | #4 | 2,074 | 1 | 28 |
| 25 | 2002 | 43–25 | 63.2% | #16 | 1,793 | 0 | 6 | 1997 | 37–19 | 66.1% | #12 | 2,011 | 1 | 28 |
| 26 | 2003 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #16 | 1,857 | 0 | 8 | 1998 | 38–16 | 70.4% | #8 | 1,968 | 1 | 30 |
| 27 | 2004 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #32 | 1,732 | 0 | 9 | 1999 | 38–22 | 63.3% | #15 | 1,898 | 1 | 31 |
| 28 | 2005 | 24–16 | 60.0% | #43 | 1,745 | 0 | 11 | 2000 | 48–19 | 71.6% | #5 | 1,951 | 1 | 32 |
| 29 | 2006 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #63 | 1,700 | 0 | 12 | 2001 | 19–13 | 59.4% | #35 | 1,852 | 1 | 32 |
| 30 | 2007 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #921 | 1,648 | 0 | 12 | 2002 | 26–24 | 52.0% | #34 | 1,756 | 1 | 32 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2003 | 29–21 | 58.0% | #18 | 1,756 | 1 | 32 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #42 | 1,772 | 1 | 32 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 29–19 | 60.4% | #31 | 1,812 | 1 | 33 |