H2H data updated: 2026-07-20 02:15 UTC
Andrei Chesnokov vs Diego Nargiso H2H: 1-0
Andrei Chesnokov holds a 1–0 lead over Diego Nargiso in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Andrei Chesnokov leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Andrei Chesnokov won the 1994 Rome Masters third round 2-6 6-3 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 60
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
ITA
Age 56
Left-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 12, 1994* | Rome Masters | Masters 1000 | R32 | Clay | Andrei Chesnokov | 2-6 6-3 6-1 | Diego Nargiso | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andrei Chesnokov | #709 | #9 | 1,399 | 1,972 | 316 | 235 | 57.4% | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 7 |
| Diego Nargiso | #1,400 | #67 | 531 | 1,702 | 94 | 152 | 38.2% | 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 | Andrei Chesnokov | Diego Nargiso | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1987 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #191 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1988 | 10–12 | 45.5% | #90 | 1,621 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1985 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #137 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 11–19 | 36.7% | #150 | 1,590 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1986 | 13–9 | 59.1% | #36 | 1,733 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #147 | 1,618 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1987 | 24–16 | 60.0% | #52 | 1,802 | 0 | 1 | 1991 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #109 | 1,603 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1988 | 44–16 | 73.3% | #14 | 1,884 | 0 | 2 | 1992 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #88 | 1,596 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1989 | 30–16 | 65.2% | #22 | 1,863 | 0 | 4 | 1993 | 8–23 | 25.8% | #120 | 1,525 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1990 | 43–20 | 68.3% | #12 | 1,861 | 0 | 6 | 1994 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #118 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1991 | 28–21 | 57.1% | #31 | 1,781 | 0 | 7 | 1995 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #183 | 1,528 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1992 | 28–27 | 50.9% | #30 | 1,726 | 0 | 7 | 1996 | 2–8 | 20.0% | #280 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1993 | 37–28 | 56.9% | #27 | 1,749 | 0 | 7 | 1997 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #152 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 1994 | 37–29 | 56.1% | #32 | 1,773 | 0 | 7 | 1998 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #128 | 1,563 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 1995 | 14–22 | 38.9% | #89 | 1,628 | 0 | 7 | 1999 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #220 | 1,524 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 1996 | 11–20 | 35.5% | #85 | 1,585 | 0 | 7 | 2000 | 8–4 | 66.7% | #134 | 1,612 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 1997 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #209 | 1,571 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 1998 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #494 | 1,565 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 1999 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #872 | 1,551 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |