H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Nadia Petrova vs Anna Smashnova H2H: 1-1
Nadia Petrova and Anna Smashnova are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on carpet. Most recently, Nadia Petrova won the 2006 Paris fourth round 6-4 6-1.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
RUS
Age 44
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
ISR
Age 50
Right-Handed
157 cm / 5'2"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 10, 2006* | Paris | WTA 500 | R16 | Carpet | Nadia Petrova | 6-4 6-1 | Anna Smashnova | Match data |
| Oct 2, 2003* | Moscow | WTA 1000 | R32 | Carpet | Anna Smashnova | 6-3 6-3 | Nadia Petrova | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nadia Petrova | #578 | #3 | 3,882 | 2,077 | 441 | 276 | 61.5% | 0 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 13 |
| Anna Smashnova | #994 | #15 | 1,616 | 1,882 | 242 | 221 | 52.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 12 |
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 | Nadia Petrova | Anna Smashnova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1991 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #264 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1992 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #236 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 1998 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #145 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #139 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1999 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #93 | 1,568 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #47 | 1,599 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2000 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #60 | 1,624 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #68 | 1,574 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2001 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #39 | 1,682 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #132 | 1,560 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2002 | 7–5 | 58.3% | #112 | 1,758 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2003 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #12 | 1,924 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 12–14 | 46.2% | #49 | 1,582 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2004 | 39–24 | 61.9% | #12 | 1,880 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #47 | 1,637 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2005 | 56–25 | 69.1% | #9 | 1,945 | 0 | 1 | 2000 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #46 | 1,668 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 2006 | 48–19 | 71.6% | #6 | 1,990 | 0 | 6 | 2001 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #88 | 1,605 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 2007 | 37–18 | 67.3% | #14 | 1,931 | 0 | 7 | 2002 | 43–25 | 63.2% | #16 | 1,793 | 0 | 6 |
| 26 | 2008 | 47–24 | 66.2% | #11 | 1,923 | 0 | 9 | 2003 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #16 | 1,857 | 0 | 8 |
| 27 | 2009 | 30–21 | 58.8% | #20 | 1,821 | 0 | 9 | 2004 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #32 | 1,732 | 0 | 9 |
| 28 | 2010 | 32–20 | 61.5% | #15 | 1,828 | 0 | 9 | 2005 | 24–16 | 60.0% | #43 | 1,745 | 0 | 11 |
| 29 | 2011 | 25–21 | 54.3% | #29 | 1,781 | 0 | 10 | 2006 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #63 | 1,700 | 0 | 12 |
| 30 | 2012 | 37–18 | 67.3% | #12 | 1,917 | 0 | 13 | 2007 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #921 | 1,648 | 0 | 12 |
| 31 | 2013 | 9–13 | 40.9% | #104 | 1,718 | 0 | 13 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2014 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #362 | 1,648 | 0 | 13 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |