H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Liz Smylie vs Sylvia Hanika H2H: 1-2
Sylvia Hanika holds a 2–1 lead over Liz Smylie in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on grass, while Sylvia Hanika leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Sylvia Hanika won the 1990 Schenectady fourth round 6-2 3-6 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
–
2
3 main draw meetings
GER
Age 66
Left-Handed
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 24, 1990* | Schenectady | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Sylvia Hanika | 6-2 3-6 6-4 | Liz Smylie | Match data |
| Jun 12, 1986* | Birmingham | WTA 250 | R32 | Grass | Liz Smylie | 6-4 6-2 | Sylvia Hanika | Match data |
| Nov 30, 1984* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Grass | Sylvia Hanika | 7-5 2-6 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 |
| Sylvia Hanika | #223 | #6 | 48 | 2,137 | 414 | 238 | 63.5% | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 8 | 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 | Sylvia Hanika | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1976 | 2–1 | 66.7% | — | 1,533 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1980 | 11–4 | 73.3% | — | 1,641 | 0 | 1 | 1977 | 5–3 | 62.5% | — | 1,583 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1981 | 2–10 | 16.7% | — | 1,528 | 0 | 1 | 1978 | 27–14 | 65.9% | — | 1,817 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 1982 | 15–8 | 65.2% | — | 1,634 | 0 | 3 | 1979 | 26–16 | 61.9% | — | 1,945 | 0 | 3 |
| 20 | 1983 | 20–14 | 58.8% | — | 1,758 | 0 | 4 | 1980 | 40–22 | 64.5% | — | 1,995 | 0 | 4 |
| 21 | 1984 | 13–18 | 41.9% | #36 | 1,766 | 0 | 4 | 1981 | 61–23 | 72.6% | — | 2,093 | 0 | 6 |
| 22 | 1985 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #43 | 1,730 | 0 | 4 | 1982 | 41–23 | 64.1% | — | 1,937 | 0 | 7 |
| 23 | 1986 | 6–13 | 31.6% | #114 | 1,669 | 0 | 4 | 1983 | 47–22 | 68.1% | — | 1,966 | 0 | 7 |
| 24 | 1987 | 20–14 | 58.8% | #27 | 1,747 | 0 | 5 | 1984 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #17 | 1,878 | 0 | 8 |
| 25 | 1988 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #153 | 1,597 | 0 | 5 | 1985 | 22–16 | 57.9% | #19 | 1,859 | 0 | 8 |
| 26 | 1989 | 21–22 | 48.8% | #66 | 1,679 | 0 | 5 | 1986 | 14–14 | 50.0% | #50 | 1,790 | 0 | 9 |
| 27 | 1990 | 15–16 | 48.4% | #53 | 1,664 | 0 | 5 | 1987 | 32–19 | 62.7% | #14 | 1,918 | 0 | 9 |
| 28 | 1991 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #116 | 1,612 | 0 | 5 | 1988 | 43–21 | 67.2% | #17 | 1,918 | 0 | 9 |
| 29 | 1992 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #209 | 1,599 | 0 | 5 | 1989 | 18–14 | 56.2% | #41 | 1,807 | 0 | 9 |
| 30 | 1993 | 7–15 | 31.8% | #125 | 1,550 | 0 | 5 | 1990 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #123 | 1,703 | 0 | 9 |
| 31 | 1994 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #192 | 1,515 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |