H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Andrei Chesnokov vs Paolo Cane H2H: 2-1
Andrei Chesnokov holds a 2–1 lead over Paolo Cane in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on clay, while Andrei Chesnokov leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Andrei Chesnokov won the 1991 Tokyo Indoor third round 7-5 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.
RUS
Age 60
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
ITA
Age 61
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 10, 1991* | Tokyo Indoor | ATP 250 | R32 | Carpet | Andrei Chesnokov | 7-5 6-3 | Paolo Cane | Match data |
| May 17, 1990* | Rome Masters | Masters 1000 | R32 | Clay | Andrei Chesnokov | 4-6 6-3 6-3 | Paolo Cane | Match data |
| Jul 29, 1989* | Hilversum | ATP 250 | QF | Clay | Paolo Cane | 7-5 1-6 6-4 | Andrei Chesnokov | 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 |
| Paolo Cane | #1,381 | #26 | 565 | 1,835 | 121 | 122 | 49.8% | 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 | Andrei Chesnokov | Paolo Cane | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1983 | 1–4 | 20.0% | — | 1,481 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1985 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #137 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 | 1984 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #555 | 1,457 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1986 | 13–9 | 59.1% | #36 | 1,733 | 0 | 0 | 1985 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #199 | 1,450 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1987 | 24–16 | 60.0% | #52 | 1,802 | 0 | 1 | 1986 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #44 | 1,667 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1988 | 44–16 | 73.3% | #14 | 1,884 | 0 | 2 | 1987 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #51 | 1,707 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 1989 | 30–16 | 65.2% | #22 | 1,863 | 0 | 4 | 1988 | 12–17 | 41.4% | #81 | 1,652 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 1990 | 43–20 | 68.3% | #12 | 1,861 | 0 | 6 | 1989 | 24–14 | 63.2% | #33 | 1,741 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 1991 | 28–21 | 57.1% | #31 | 1,781 | 0 | 7 | 1990 | 15–16 | 48.4% | #109 | 1,682 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 1992 | 28–27 | 50.9% | #30 | 1,726 | 0 | 7 | 1991 | 8–6 | 57.1% | #122 | 1,684 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 1993 | 37–28 | 56.9% | #27 | 1,749 | 0 | 7 | 1992 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #163 | 1,654 | 0 | 3 |
| 28 | 1994 | 37–29 | 56.1% | #32 | 1,773 | 0 | 7 | 1993 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #177 | 1,596 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 1995 | 14–22 | 38.9% | #89 | 1,628 | 0 | 7 | 1994 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #145 | 1,598 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 1996 | 11–20 | 35.5% | #85 | 1,585 | 0 | 7 | 1995 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #635 | 1,581 | 0 | 3 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |