H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Elena Dementieva vs Anna Smashnova H2H: 1-2
Anna Smashnova holds a 2–1 lead over Elena Dementieva in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Anna Smashnova leads 2–0 on hard courts, while Elena Dementieva leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Elena Dementieva won the 2004 Roland Garros third round 0-6 7-6(2) 0-1 RET.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
RUS
Age 44
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
1
–
2
3 main draw meetings
ISR
Age 50
Right-Handed
157 cm / 5'2"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 30, 2004* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R32 | Clay | Elena Dementieva | 0-6 7-6(2) 0-1 (ret.) | Anna Smashnova | Match data |
| Oct 25, 2002* | Linz | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Anna Smashnova | 6-3 3-6 7-5 | Elena Dementieva | Match data |
| Aug 2, 2002* | San Diego | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Anna Smashnova | 6-2 5-7 7-6(2) | Elena Dementieva | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elena Dementieva | #10 | #3 | 8,286 | 2,108 | 472 | 243 | 66.0% | 0 | 3 | 0 | 9 | 3 | 15 |
| Anna Smashnova | #994 | #15 | 1,616 | 1,882 | 242 | 221 | 52.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 12 |
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 | Elena Dementieva | Anna Smashnova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #349 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #236 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 1998 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #186 | 1,478 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #139 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1999 | 11–11 | 50.0% | #62 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #47 | 1,599 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2000 | 33–19 | 63.5% | #11 | 1,859 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #68 | 1,574 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2001 | 34–22 | 60.7% | #15 | 1,833 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #132 | 1,560 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2002 | 36–26 | 58.1% | #19 | 1,763 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2003 | 47–25 | 65.3% | #8 | 1,966 | 0 | 3 | 1998 | 12–14 | 46.2% | #49 | 1,582 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2004 | 40–22 | 64.5% | #6 | 1,986 | 0 | 4 | 1999 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #47 | 1,637 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2005 | 41–22 | 65.1% | #8 | 1,925 | 0 | 4 | 2000 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #46 | 1,668 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 2006 | 45–21 | 68.2% | #8 | 1,908 | 0 | 6 | 2001 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #88 | 1,605 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 2007 | 41–18 | 69.5% | #11 | 1,964 | 0 | 8 | 2002 | 43–25 | 63.2% | #16 | 1,793 | 0 | 6 |
| 26 | 2008 | 50–17 | 74.6% | #4 | 2,014 | 0 | 10 | 2003 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #16 | 1,857 | 0 | 8 |
| 27 | 2009 | 55–18 | 75.3% | #5 | 1,981 | 0 | 13 | 2004 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #32 | 1,732 | 0 | 9 |
| 28 | 2010 | 39–19 | 67.2% | #9 | 1,928 | 0 | 15 | 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 |