H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Anna Smashnova vs Emilie Loit H2H: 2-2
Anna Smashnova and Emilie Loit are tied 2–2 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Emilie Loit leads 2–1 on hard courts, while Anna Smashnova leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Anna Smashnova won the 2005 Modena quarterfinal 6-1 6-4.
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
–
2
4 main draw meetings
FRA
Age 47
Left-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 16, 2005* | Modena | WTA 250 | QF | Clay | Anna Smashnova | 6-1 6-4 | Emilie Loit | Match data |
| Jan 11, 2002* | Canberra | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Anna Smashnova | 6-3 6-0 | Emilie Loit | Match data |
| Mar 9, 2001* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R128 | Hard | Emilie Loit | 6-3 6-7(4) 6-3 | Anna Smashnova | Match data |
| Jan 22, 1999* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Emilie Loit | 1-6 6-2 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 |
| Emilie Loit | #161 | #27 | 1,016 | 1,780 | 162 | 180 | 47.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
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 | Emilie Loit | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1995 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #68 | 1,574 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1996 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #132 | 1,560 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #96 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1998 | 12–14 | 46.2% | #49 | 1,582 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1999 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #47 | 1,637 | 0 | 1 | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2000 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #46 | 1,668 | 0 | 2 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2001 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #88 | 1,605 | 0 | 2 | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2002 | 43–25 | 63.2% | #16 | 1,793 | 0 | 6 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2003 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #16 | 1,857 | 0 | 8 | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2004 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #32 | 1,732 | 0 | 9 | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2005 | 24–16 | 60.0% | #43 | 1,745 | 0 | 11 | 2007 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #43 | 1,609 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2006 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #63 | 1,700 | 0 | 12 | 2008 | 5–15 | 25.0% | #137 | 1,513 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2007 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #921 | 1,648 | 0 | 12 | 2009 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #161 | 1,531 | 0 | 3 |