H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Jill Craybas vs Anna Smashnova H2H: 1-2
Anna Smashnova holds a 2–1 lead over Jill Craybas 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 Warsaw fourth round 6-0 7-5.
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 52
Right-Handed
160 cm / 5'3"
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 2, 2003* | Warsaw | WTA 500 | R16 | Clay | Anna Smashnova | 6-0 7-5 | Jill Craybas | Match data |
| Jan 4, 2003* | Auckland | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Anna Smashnova | 6-3 6-1 | Jill Craybas | Match data |
| Mar 22, 2001* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R128 | Hard | Jill Craybas | 7-5 6-2 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jill Craybas | #336 | #39 | 974 | 1,695 | 161 | 256 | 38.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 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 | Jill Craybas | 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 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 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #68 | 1,574 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1996 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #132 | 1,560 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1996 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,488 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 12–14 | 46.2% | #49 | 1,582 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1999 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #47 | 1,637 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 1998 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #154 | 1,473 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #46 | 1,668 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 1999 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #175 | 1,445 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #88 | 1,605 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #145 | 1,449 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 43–25 | 63.2% | #16 | 1,793 | 0 | 6 |
| 26 | 2001 | 8–17 | 32.0% | #98 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #16 | 1,857 | 0 | 8 |
| 27 | 2002 | 19–15 | 55.9% | #57 | 1,652 | 0 | 1 | 2004 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #32 | 1,732 | 0 | 9 |
| 28 | 2003 | 16–22 | 42.1% | #99 | 1,568 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 24–16 | 60.0% | #43 | 1,745 | 0 | 11 |
| 29 | 2004 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #59 | 1,499 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #63 | 1,700 | 0 | 12 |
| 30 | 2005 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #48 | 1,614 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #921 | 1,648 | 0 | 12 |
| 31 | 2006 | 18–25 | 41.9% | #70 | 1,569 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2007 | 12–27 | 30.8% | #79 | 1,472 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2008 | 22–25 | 46.8% | #64 | 1,575 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2009 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #76 | 1,592 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2010 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #98 | 1,546 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2011 | 6–20 | 23.1% | #150 | 1,442 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 2012 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #189 | 1,449 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2013 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #336 | 1,451 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |