H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Anna Smashnova vs Samantha Reeves H2H: 1-2
Samantha Reeves holds a 2–1 lead over Anna Smashnova in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on clay, while Samantha Reeves leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Samantha Reeves won the 2003 Wimbledon first round 6-4 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
1
–
2
3 main draw meetings
USA
Age 47
Right-Handed
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 25, 2003* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R128 | Grass | Samantha Reeves | 6-4 6-4 | Anna Smashnova | Match data |
| May 23, 2002* | Madrid | WTA 1000 | R32 | Clay | Anna Smashnova | 1-6 7-5 6-3 | Samantha Reeves | Match data |
| Apr 10, 2002* | Amelia Island | WTA 500 | R64 | Clay | Samantha Reeves | 6-7(5) 6-3 6-4 | 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 |
| Samantha Reeves | #864 | #62 | 523 | 1,629 | 30 | 59 | 33.7% | 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.
| Age | Anna Smashnova | Samantha Reeves | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1998 | 2–8 | 20.0% | #111 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1999 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #121 | 1,480 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1998 | 12–14 | 46.2% | #49 | 1,582 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #171 | 1,447 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1999 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #47 | 1,637 | 0 | 1 | 2001 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #106 | 1,515 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2000 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #46 | 1,668 | 0 | 2 | 2002 | 8–14 | 36.4% | #108 | 1,545 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2001 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #88 | 1,605 | 0 | 2 | 2003 | 8–10 | 44.4% | #74 | 1,588 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2002 | 43–25 | 63.2% | #16 | 1,793 | 0 | 6 | 2004 | 3–12 | 20.0% | #198 | 1,527 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2003 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #16 | 1,857 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2004 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #32 | 1,732 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2005 | 24–16 | 60.0% | #43 | 1,745 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2006 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #63 | 1,700 | 0 | 12 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2007 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #921 | 1,648 | 0 | 12 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |