H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Anna Smashnova vs Fang Li H2H: 0-2
Fang Li holds a 2–0 lead over Anna Smashnova in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Fang Li leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Fang Li won the 1996 Auckland third round 6-1 6-7 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
–
2
2 main draw meetings
CHN
Right-Handed
166 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 4, 1996* | Auckland | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Fang Li | 6-1 6-7 6-1 | Anna Smashnova | Match data |
| Jul 8, 1994* | Palermo | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Fang Li | 6-4 5-7 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 |
| Fang Li | #488 | #36 | 723 | 1,705 | 67 | 89 | 42.9% | 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.
| Anna Smashnova | Fang Li | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 1991 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #264 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #119 | 1,547 | 0 | 0 |
| 1992 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #236 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #132 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 |
| 1993 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #139 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #67 | 1,609 | 0 | 0 |
| 1994 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #47 | 1,599 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 9–8 | 52.9% | #93 | 1,613 | 0 | 0 |
| 1995 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #68 | 1,574 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #199 | 1,585 | 0 | 0 |
| 1996 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #132 | 1,560 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #69 | 1,594 | 0 | 0 |
| 1998 | 12–14 | 46.2% | #49 | 1,582 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #40 | 1,676 | 0 | 0 |
| 1999 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #47 | 1,637 | 0 | 1 | 1999 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #86 | 1,585 | 0 | 0 |
| 2000 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #46 | 1,668 | 0 | 2 | 2000 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #503 | 1,541 | 0 | 0 |
| 2001 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #88 | 1,605 | 0 | 2 | 2001 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #488 | 1,500 | 0 | 0 |
| 2002 | 43–25 | 63.2% | #16 | 1,793 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2003 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #16 | 1,857 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2004 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #32 | 1,732 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2005 | 24–16 | 60.0% | #43 | 1,745 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2006 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #63 | 1,700 | 0 | 12 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2007 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #921 | 1,648 | 0 | 12 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |