H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Anne Smith vs Manuela Maleeva Fragniere H2H: 1-2
Manuela Maleeva Fragniere holds a 2–1 lead over Anne Smith in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on grass, while Manuela Maleeva Fragniere leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Manuela Maleeva Fragniere won the 1988 Chicago fourth round 7-6 6-2.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
Age 67
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H
1
–
2
3 main draw meetings
Age 59
Right-Handed
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 11, 1988* | Chicago | WTA 250 | R16 | Carpet | Manuela Maleeva Fragniere | 7-6 6-2 | Anne Smith | Match data |
| Jan 9, 1987* | Sydney | WTA 500 | R16 | Grass | Manuela Maleeva Fragniere | 7-5 6-1 | Anne Smith | Match data |
| Dec 5, 1982* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R32 | Grass | Anne Smith | 6-2 6-2 | Manuela Maleeva Fragniere | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anne Smith | — | — | — | 2,050 | 221 | 173 | 56.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Manuela Maleeva Fragniere | #5 | #3 | 148 | 2,128 | 458 | 183 | 71.5% | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 14 | 19 |
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 | Anne Smith | Manuela Maleeva Fragniere | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1982 | 15–10 | 60.0% | — | 1,688 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1983 | 21–16 | 56.8% | — | 1,788 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1977 | 8–3 | 72.7% | — | 1,634 | 0 | 1 | 1984 | 50–16 | 75.8% | #6 | 2,098 | 0 | 5 |
| 18 | 1978 | 14–7 | 66.7% | — | 1,784 | 0 | 2 | 1985 | 46–18 | 71.9% | #7 | 2,073 | 0 | 6 |
| 19 | 1979 | 28–28 | 50.0% | — | 1,847 | 0 | 2 | 1986 | 42–21 | 66.7% | #10 | 1,991 | 0 | 6 |
| 20 | 1980 | 21–21 | 50.0% | — | 1,866 | 0 | 2 | 1987 | 44–15 | 74.6% | #8 | 2,111 | 0 | 8 |
| 21 | 1981 | 36–25 | 59.0% | — | 1,934 | 0 | 2 | 1988 | 42–14 | 75.0% | #6 | 2,091 | 0 | 10 |
| 22 | 1982 | 27–19 | 58.7% | — | 1,899 | 0 | 2 | 1989 | 34–13 | 72.3% | #9 | 2,016 | 0 | 12 |
| 23 | 1983 | 11–9 | 55.0% | — | 1,897 | 0 | 2 | 1990 | 42–16 | 72.4% | #9 | 2,067 | 0 | 12 |
| 24 | 1984 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,873 | 0 | 2 | 1991 | 43–14 | 75.4% | #10 | 2,027 | 0 | 15 |
| 25 | 1985 | 10–4 | 71.4% | — | 1,899 | 0 | 3 | 1992 | 31–12 | 72.1% | #9 | 1,994 | 0 | 16 |
| 26 | 1986 | 8–13 | 38.1% | — | 1,701 | 0 | 3 | 1993 | 36–16 | 69.2% | #11 | 2,045 | 0 | 18 |
| 27 | 1987 | 15–9 | 62.5% | — | 1,779 | 0 | 3 | 1994 | 12–2 | 85.7% | #5 | 2,066 | 0 | 19 |
| 28 | 1988 | 8–8 | 50.0% | — | 1,773 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 1989 | 10–6 | 62.5% | — | 1,848 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 1990 | 16–14 | 53.3% | — | 1,827 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 1991 | 8–5 | 61.5% | — | 1,820 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |