H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Anna Smashnova vs Sandra Cecchini H2H: 0-1
Sandra Cecchini holds a 1–0 lead over Anna Smashnova in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Sandra Cecchini leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Sandra Cecchini won the 1996 Rome second round 6-4 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
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
ITA
Age 61
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 8, 1996* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Sandra Cecchini | 6-4 6-3 | 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 |
| Sandra Cecchini | #487 | #15 | 279 | 1,937 | 299 | 215 | 58.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 8 | 11 |
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 | Sandra Cecchini | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1981 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,477 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1994 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #47 | 1,599 | 0 | 0 | 1982 | 2–2 | 50.0% | — | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1995 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #68 | 1,574 | 0 | 0 | 1983 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,497 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1996 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #132 | 1,560 | 0 | 0 | 1984 | 17–15 | 53.1% | #49 | 1,651 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1985 | 22–19 | 53.7% | #49 | 1,746 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 1998 | 12–14 | 46.2% | #49 | 1,582 | 0 | 0 | 1986 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #73 | 1,635 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 1999 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #47 | 1,637 | 0 | 1 | 1987 | 36–16 | 69.2% | #18 | 1,860 | 0 | 5 |
| 23 | 2000 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #46 | 1,668 | 0 | 2 | 1988 | 34–14 | 70.8% | #21 | 1,845 | 0 | 7 |
| 24 | 2001 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #88 | 1,605 | 0 | 2 | 1989 | 28–15 | 65.1% | #26 | 1,798 | 0 | 8 |
| 25 | 2002 | 43–25 | 63.2% | #16 | 1,793 | 0 | 6 | 1990 | 26–14 | 65.0% | #20 | 1,815 | 0 | 9 |
| 26 | 2003 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #16 | 1,857 | 0 | 8 | 1991 | 22–13 | 62.9% | #27 | 1,776 | 0 | 10 |
| 27 | 2004 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #32 | 1,732 | 0 | 9 | 1992 | 23–15 | 60.5% | #34 | 1,824 | 0 | 11 |
| 28 | 2005 | 24–16 | 60.0% | #43 | 1,745 | 0 | 11 | 1993 | 18–15 | 54.5% | #56 | 1,725 | 0 | 11 |
| 29 | 2006 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #63 | 1,700 | 0 | 12 | 1994 | 28–16 | 63.6% | #33 | 1,840 | 0 | 11 |
| 30 | 2007 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #921 | 1,648 | 0 | 12 | 1995 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #108 | 1,661 | 0 | 11 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1996 | 10–10 | 50.0% | #80 | 1,629 | 0 | 11 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1997 | 4–7 | 36.4% | #206 | 1,610 | 0 | 11 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1998 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #200 | 1,556 | 0 | 11 |