H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Liz Smylie vs Patty Fendick H2H: 1-3
Patty Fendick holds a 3–1 lead over Liz Smylie in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Patty Fendick leads 3–0 on hard courts, while Liz Smylie leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Patty Fendick won the 1989 US Open second round 3-6 6-2 6-4.
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
USA
Age 61
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 31, 1989* | US Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Patty Fendick | 3-6 6-2 6-4 | Liz Smylie | Match data |
| Feb 3, 1989* | Auckland | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Patty Fendick | 6-2 6-3 | Liz Smylie | Match data |
| Jan 5, 1989* | Brisbane | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Patty Fendick | 6-4 7-6 | Liz Smylie | Match data |
| Jul 18, 1985* | Newport | WTA 250 | R32 | Grass | Liz Smylie | 3-6 6-3 6-4 | Patty Fendick | 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 |
| Patty Fendick | #360 | #19 | 55 | 1,883 | 199 | 162 | 55.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
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 | Patty Fendick | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 1980 | 11–4 | 73.3% | — | 1,641 | 0 | 1 | 1982 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1981 | 2–10 | 16.7% | — | 1,528 | 0 | 1 | 1983 | 1–8 | 11.1% | — | 1,430 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1982 | 15–8 | 65.2% | — | 1,634 | 0 | 3 | 1984 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #120 | 1,470 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1983 | 20–14 | 58.8% | — | 1,758 | 0 | 4 | 1985 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #83 | 1,551 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1984 | 13–18 | 41.9% | #36 | 1,766 | 0 | 4 | 1986 | 8–6 | 57.1% | #95 | 1,643 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1985 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #43 | 1,730 | 0 | 4 | 1987 | 8–9 | 47.1% | #79 | 1,674 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1986 | 6–13 | 31.6% | #114 | 1,669 | 0 | 4 | 1988 | 38–16 | 70.4% | #22 | 1,798 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 1987 | 20–14 | 58.8% | #27 | 1,747 | 0 | 5 | 1989 | 22–13 | 62.9% | #31 | 1,762 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 1988 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #153 | 1,597 | 0 | 5 | 1990 | 16–15 | 51.6% | #42 | 1,740 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 1989 | 21–22 | 48.8% | #66 | 1,679 | 0 | 5 | 1991 | 16–18 | 47.1% | #56 | 1,690 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 1990 | 15–16 | 48.4% | #53 | 1,664 | 0 | 5 | 1992 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #43 | 1,779 | 0 | 3 |
| 28 | 1991 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #116 | 1,612 | 0 | 5 | 1993 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #27 | 1,839 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 1992 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #209 | 1,599 | 0 | 5 | 1994 | 23–20 | 53.5% | #50 | 1,725 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 1993 | 7–15 | 31.8% | #125 | 1,550 | 0 | 5 | 1995 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #57 | 1,691 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 1994 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #192 | 1,515 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |