H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Anna Smashnova vs Nicole Pratt H2H: 1-1
Anna Smashnova and Nicole Pratt are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Nicole Pratt leads 1–0 on carpet, while Anna Smashnova leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Nicole Pratt won the 2000 Tokyo third round 6-0 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
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
AUS
Age 53
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 3, 2000* | Tokyo | WTA 1000 | R32 | Carpet | Nicole Pratt | 6-0 6-1 | Anna Smashnova | Match data |
| May 22, 1999* | Madrid | WTA 1000 | R16 | Clay | Anna Smashnova | 6-0 6-1 | Nicole Pratt | 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 |
| Nicole Pratt | #1,043 | #35 | 924 | 1,764 | 156 | 217 | 41.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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 | Nicole Pratt | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1990 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #201 | 1,497 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1995 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #68 | 1,574 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #201 | 1,469 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1996 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #132 | 1,560 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #203 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1993 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #172 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1998 | 12–14 | 46.2% | #49 | 1,582 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #224 | 1,465 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1999 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #47 | 1,637 | 0 | 1 | 1995 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #214 | 1,451 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2000 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #46 | 1,668 | 0 | 2 | 1996 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #194 | 1,434 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2001 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #88 | 1,605 | 0 | 2 | 1997 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #110 | 1,494 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2002 | 43–25 | 63.2% | #16 | 1,793 | 0 | 6 | 1998 | 4–13 | 23.5% | #113 | 1,464 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2003 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #16 | 1,857 | 0 | 8 | 1999 | 15–17 | 46.9% | #56 | 1,598 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2004 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #32 | 1,732 | 0 | 9 | 2000 | 16–23 | 41.0% | #54 | 1,621 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2005 | 24–16 | 60.0% | #43 | 1,745 | 0 | 11 | 2001 | 22–23 | 48.9% | #51 | 1,704 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2006 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #63 | 1,700 | 0 | 12 | 2002 | 23–20 | 53.5% | #48 | 1,719 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2007 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #921 | 1,648 | 0 | 12 | 2003 | 17–23 | 42.5% | #53 | 1,646 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 19–21 | 47.5% | #50 | 1,604 | 0 | 1 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 8–17 | 32.0% | #126 | 1,544 | 0 | 1 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #77 | 1,546 | 0 | 1 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #70 | 1,566 | 0 | 1 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #1043 | 1,545 | 0 | 1 |