H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Miho Saeki vs Nana Smith H2H: 0-1
Nana Smith holds a 1–0 lead over Miho Saeki in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Nana Smith leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Nana Smith won the 1996 Manhattan Beach second round 3-6 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.
JPN
Age 50
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
JPN
Age 55
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 14, 1996* | Manhattan Beach | WTA 250 | R64 | Hard | Nana Smith | 3-6 6-2 6-3 | Miho Saeki | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Miho Saeki | #884 | #56 | 461 | 1,579 | 26 | 57 | 31.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nana Smith | #669 | #51 | 332 | 1,649 | 65 | 114 | 36.3% | 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 | Miho Saeki | Nana Smith | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1988 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #201 | 1,495 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1989 | 7–11 | 38.9% | #103 | 1,586 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1995 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #234 | 1,480 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #113 | 1,540 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1996 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #120 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 7–13 | 35.0% | #144 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1997 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #76 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #118 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1998 | 9–15 | 37.5% | #89 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 1–11 | 8.3% | #317 | 1,445 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1999 | 6–11 | 35.3% | #119 | 1,526 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 9–7 | 56.2% | #58 | 1,578 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 7–13 | 35.0% | #128 | 1,545 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2001 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #179 | 1,501 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #70 | 1,602 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2002 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #201 | 1,500 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 4–12 | 25.0% | #105 | 1,542 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2003 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #256 | 1,473 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #117 | 1,537 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2004 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #260 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #134 | 1,521 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2005 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #210 | 1,473 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #218 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |