H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Chanda Rubin vs Liz Smylie H2H: 1-0
Chanda Rubin holds a 1–0 lead over Liz Smylie in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Chanda Rubin leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Chanda Rubin won the 1991 Scottsdale third round 6-3 6-0.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
USA
Age 50
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
AUS
Age 63
Right-Handed
166 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 31, 1991* | Scottsdale | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Chanda Rubin | 6-3 6-0 | Liz Smylie | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chanda Rubin | #1,122 | #6 | 2,554 | 2,047 | 343 | 231 | 59.8% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 7 |
| Liz Smylie | #501 | #20 | 29 | 1,824 | 161 | 188 | 46.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
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 | Chanda Rubin | Liz Smylie | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | 1990 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #526 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 15 | 1991 | 8–6 | 57.1% | #84 | 1,583 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1992 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #84 | 1,617 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1993 | 15–17 | 46.9% | #70 | 1,653 | 0 | 0 | 1980 | 11–4 | 73.3% | — | 1,641 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | 1994 | 28–17 | 62.2% | #23 | 1,804 | 0 | 0 | 1981 | 2–10 | 16.7% | — | 1,528 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 1995 | 38–19 | 66.7% | #15 | 1,945 | 0 | 0 | 1982 | 15–8 | 65.2% | — | 1,634 | 0 | 3 |
| 20 | 1996 | 20–9 | 69.0% | #17 | 1,989 | 0 | 0 | 1983 | 20–14 | 58.8% | — | 1,758 | 0 | 4 |
| 21 | 1997 | 23–20 | 53.5% | #32 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 | 1984 | 13–18 | 41.9% | #36 | 1,766 | 0 | 4 |
| 22 | 1998 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #35 | 1,800 | 0 | 1 | 1985 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #43 | 1,730 | 0 | 4 |
| 23 | 1999 | 33–20 | 62.3% | #22 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 | 1986 | 6–13 | 31.6% | #114 | 1,669 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 2000 | 42–22 | 65.6% | #13 | 1,910 | 0 | 3 | 1987 | 20–14 | 58.8% | #27 | 1,747 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2001 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #52 | 1,806 | 0 | 3 | 1988 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #153 | 1,597 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 2002 | 29–11 | 72.5% | #13 | 1,958 | 0 | 5 | 1989 | 21–22 | 48.8% | #66 | 1,679 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | 2003 | 43–20 | 68.3% | #9 | 1,917 | 0 | 7 | 1990 | 15–16 | 48.4% | #53 | 1,664 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2004 | 16–10 | 61.5% | #52 | 1,860 | 0 | 7 | 1991 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #116 | 1,612 | 0 | 5 |
| 29 | 2005 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #545 | 1,823 | 0 | 7 | 1992 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #209 | 1,599 | 0 | 5 |
| 30 | 2006 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #486 | 1,719 | 0 | 7 | 1993 | 7–15 | 31.8% | #125 | 1,550 | 0 | 5 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1994 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #192 | 1,515 | 0 | 5 |