H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Liz Smylie vs Eva Pfaff H2H: 3-2
Liz Smylie holds a 3–2 lead over Eva Pfaff in their WTA head-to-head. Across 5 main-draw meetings, Eva Pfaff leads 2–1 on grass, while Liz Smylie leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Liz Smylie won the 1989 Worcester fourth round 2-6 6-2 6-3.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
AUS
Age 63
Right-Handed
166 cm / 5'5"
H2H
3
–
2
5 main draw meetings
GER
Age 65
Right-Handed
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 3, 1989* | Worcester | WTA 250 | R16 | Carpet | Liz Smylie | 2-6 6-2 6-3 | Eva Pfaff | Match data |
| Sep 3, 1987* | US Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Liz Smylie | 6-4 7-5 | Eva Pfaff | Match data |
| Jun 13, 1987* | Birmingham | WTA 250 | QF | Grass | Eva Pfaff | 6-1 6-3 | Liz Smylie | Match data |
| Nov 17, 1984* | Brisbane | WTA 500 | QF | Grass | Liz Smylie | 6-4 6-1 | Eva Pfaff | Match data |
| Jun 23, 1982* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R128 | Grass | Eva Pfaff | 7-6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liz Smylie | #501 | #20 | 29 | 1,824 | 161 | 188 | 46.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Eva Pfaff | #420 | #17 | 21 | 1,902 | 155 | 202 | 43.4% | 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 | Liz Smylie | Eva Pfaff | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1977 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,481 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1980 | 11–4 | 73.3% | — | 1,641 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1981 | 2–10 | 16.7% | — | 1,528 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1982 | 15–8 | 65.2% | — | 1,634 | 0 | 3 | 1980 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,609 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1983 | 20–14 | 58.8% | — | 1,758 | 0 | 4 | 1981 | 14–19 | 42.4% | — | 1,643 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1984 | 13–18 | 41.9% | #36 | 1,766 | 0 | 4 | 1982 | 18–22 | 45.0% | — | 1,777 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1985 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #43 | 1,730 | 0 | 4 | 1983 | 31–21 | 59.6% | — | 1,856 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1986 | 6–13 | 31.6% | #114 | 1,669 | 0 | 4 | 1984 | 14–14 | 50.0% | #31 | 1,797 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1987 | 20–14 | 58.8% | #27 | 1,747 | 0 | 5 | 1985 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #39 | 1,740 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1988 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #153 | 1,597 | 0 | 5 | 1986 | 14–19 | 42.4% | #58 | 1,689 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1989 | 21–22 | 48.8% | #66 | 1,679 | 0 | 5 | 1987 | 19–20 | 48.7% | #44 | 1,744 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1990 | 15–16 | 48.4% | #53 | 1,664 | 0 | 5 | 1988 | 8–17 | 32.0% | #74 | 1,649 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 1991 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #116 | 1,612 | 0 | 5 | 1989 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #104 | 1,586 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 1992 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #209 | 1,599 | 0 | 5 | 1990 | 3–12 | 20.0% | #152 | 1,521 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 1993 | 7–15 | 31.8% | #125 | 1,550 | 0 | 5 | 1991 | 1–10 | 9.1% | #203 | 1,469 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 1994 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #192 | 1,515 | 0 | 5 | 1992 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #420 | 1,459 | 0 | 0 |