H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Anna Smashnova vs Tatiana Panova H2H: 2-1
Anna Smashnova holds a 2–1 lead over Tatiana Panova in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while Anna Smashnova leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Anna Smashnova won the 2003 Berlin second round 6-1 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
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
RUS
Age 49
Right-Handed
154 cm / 5'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 7, 2003* | Berlin | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Anna Smashnova | 6-1 6-1 | Tatiana Panova | Match data |
| Mar 21, 2002* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Tatiana Panova | 2-6 7-5 6-1 | Anna Smashnova | Match data |
| Jan 6, 2002* | Auckland | WTA 250 | F | Hard | Anna Smashnova | 6-2 6-2 | Tatiana Panova | 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 |
| Tatiana Panova | #1,113 | #20 | 1,270 | 1,782 | 130 | 196 | 39.9% | 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.
| Age | Anna Smashnova | Tatiana Panova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1994 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #142 | 1,508 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1995 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #68 | 1,574 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #179 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1996 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #132 | 1,560 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #159 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1997 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #97 | 1,475 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1998 | 12–14 | 46.2% | #49 | 1,582 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #78 | 1,472 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1999 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #47 | 1,637 | 0 | 1 | 1999 | 14–23 | 37.8% | #40 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2000 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #46 | 1,668 | 0 | 2 | 2000 | 23–28 | 45.1% | #34 | 1,698 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2001 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #88 | 1,605 | 0 | 2 | 2001 | 22–30 | 42.3% | #40 | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2002 | 43–25 | 63.2% | #16 | 1,793 | 0 | 6 | 2002 | 34–31 | 52.3% | #23 | 1,752 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2003 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #16 | 1,857 | 0 | 8 | 2003 | 7–13 | 35.0% | #114 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2004 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #32 | 1,732 | 0 | 9 | 2004 | 8–14 | 36.4% | #77 | 1,595 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2005 | 24–16 | 60.0% | #43 | 1,745 | 0 | 11 | 2005 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #91 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2006 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #63 | 1,700 | 0 | 12 | 2006 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #376 | 1,470 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2007 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #921 | 1,648 | 0 | 12 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |