H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Liz Smylie vs Helena Sukova H2H: 1-3
Helena Sukova holds a 3–1 lead over Liz Smylie in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on grass, while Helena Sukova leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Helena Sukova won the 1989 Sydney third round 6-1 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
1
–
3
4 main draw meetings
CZE
Age 61
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 12, 1989* | Sydney | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Helena Sukova | 6-1 6-3 | Liz Smylie | Match data |
| Jan 21, 1987* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R16 | Grass | Liz Smylie | 7-5 3-6 7-5 | Helena Sukova | Match data |
| Dec 14, 1984* | Tokyo Pan Pacific | WTA 250 | R16 | Carpet | Helena Sukova | 6-7 6-1 6-2 | Liz Smylie | Match data |
| Nov 18, 1984* | Brisbane | WTA 500 | F | Grass | Helena Sukova | 6-4 6-4 | 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 |
| Helena Sukova | #102 | #4 | 735 | 2,217 | 580 | 297 | 66.1% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 9 |
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 | Helena Sukova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1981 | 6–4 | 60.0% | — | 1,583 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1980 | 11–4 | 73.3% | — | 1,641 | 0 | 1 | 1982 | 23–23 | 50.0% | — | 1,757 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1981 | 2–10 | 16.7% | — | 1,528 | 0 | 1 | 1983 | 33–20 | 62.3% | — | 1,907 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1982 | 15–8 | 65.2% | — | 1,634 | 0 | 3 | 1984 | 48–23 | 67.6% | #7 | 2,041 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 1983 | 20–14 | 58.8% | — | 1,758 | 0 | 4 | 1985 | 54–21 | 72.0% | #9 | 2,028 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 1984 | 13–18 | 41.9% | #36 | 1,766 | 0 | 4 | 1986 | 69–21 | 76.7% | #6 | 2,151 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 1985 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #43 | 1,730 | 0 | 4 | 1987 | 58–19 | 75.3% | #7 | 2,129 | 0 | 5 |
| 23 | 1986 | 6–13 | 31.6% | #114 | 1,669 | 0 | 4 | 1988 | 49–19 | 72.1% | #8 | 2,120 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 1987 | 20–14 | 58.8% | #27 | 1,747 | 0 | 5 | 1989 | 39–15 | 72.2% | #8 | 2,043 | 0 | 6 |
| 25 | 1988 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #153 | 1,597 | 0 | 5 | 1990 | 41–17 | 70.7% | #14 | 2,025 | 0 | 6 |
| 26 | 1989 | 21–22 | 48.8% | #66 | 1,679 | 0 | 5 | 1991 | 34–18 | 65.4% | #17 | 1,958 | 0 | 7 |
| 27 | 1990 | 15–16 | 48.4% | #53 | 1,664 | 0 | 5 | 1992 | 38–15 | 71.7% | #12 | 1,976 | 0 | 9 |
| 28 | 1991 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #116 | 1,612 | 0 | 5 | 1993 | 24–15 | 61.5% | #17 | 1,925 | 0 | 9 |
| 29 | 1992 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #209 | 1,599 | 0 | 5 | 1994 | 21–14 | 60.0% | #22 | 1,889 | 0 | 9 |
| 30 | 1993 | 7–15 | 31.8% | #125 | 1,550 | 0 | 5 | 1995 | 18–15 | 54.5% | #29 | 1,819 | 0 | 9 |
| 31 | 1994 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #192 | 1,515 | 0 | 5 | 1996 | 17–15 | 53.1% | #35 | 1,792 | 0 | 9 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1997 | 8–21 | 27.6% | #80 | 1,661 | 0 | 9 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1998 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #102 | 1,637 | 0 | 9 |