H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Anna Smashnova vs Lourdes Domínguez Lino H2H: 2-1
Anna Smashnova holds a 2–1 lead over Lourdes Domínguez Lino in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Anna Smashnova leads 2–0 on clay, while Lourdes Domínguez Lino leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Anna Smashnova won the 2006 Budapest final 6-1 6-3.
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
ESP
Age 45
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 30, 2006* | Budapest | WTA 250 | F | Clay | Anna Smashnova | 6-1 6-3 | Lourdes Domínguez Lino | Match data |
| Mar 21, 2006* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R128 | Hard | Lourdes Domínguez Lino | 5-3 (ret.) | Anna Smashnova | Match data |
| Jul 28, 2005* | Budapest | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Anna Smashnova | 6-1 6-2 | Lourdes Domínguez Lino | 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 |
| Lourdes Domínguez Lino | #1,129 | #40 | 1,305 | 1,674 | 125 | 157 | 44.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
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 | Lourdes Domínguez Lino | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1996 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #132 | 1,560 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #141 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #378 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1998 | 12–14 | 46.2% | #49 | 1,582 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #390 | 1,518 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1999 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #47 | 1,637 | 0 | 1 | 2003 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #319 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2000 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #46 | 1,668 | 0 | 2 | 2004 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #208 | 1,508 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2001 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #88 | 1,605 | 0 | 2 | 2005 | 6–4 | 60.0% | #72 | 1,553 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2002 | 43–25 | 63.2% | #16 | 1,793 | 0 | 6 | 2006 | 21–19 | 52.5% | #52 | 1,622 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2003 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #16 | 1,857 | 0 | 8 | 2007 | 16–21 | 43.2% | #71 | 1,558 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2004 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #32 | 1,732 | 0 | 9 | 2008 | 6–11 | 35.3% | #91 | 1,521 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2005 | 24–16 | 60.0% | #43 | 1,745 | 0 | 11 | 2009 | 6–13 | 31.6% | #134 | 1,484 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2006 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #63 | 1,700 | 0 | 12 | 2010 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #85 | 1,493 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2007 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #921 | 1,648 | 0 | 12 | 2011 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #79 | 1,583 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #48 | 1,653 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 17–22 | 43.6% | #69 | 1,620 | 0 | 2 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 7–11 | 38.9% | #110 | 1,570 | 0 | 2 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #100 | 1,552 | 0 | 2 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2016 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #220 | 1,517 | 0 | 2 |