H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Andrei Chesnokov vs Pete Sampras H2H: 0-1
Pete Sampras holds a 1–0 lead over Andrei Chesnokov in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Pete Sampras leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Pete Sampras won the 1994 Rome Masters fourth round 7-6(8) 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
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 54
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 14, 1994* | Rome Masters | Masters 1000 | R16 | Clay | Pete Sampras | 7-6(8) 6-3 | 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 |
| Pete Sampras | #34 | #1 | 5,792 | 2,265 | 737 | 208 | 78.0% | 14 | 11 | 7 | 0 | 32 | 64 |
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 | Pete Sampras | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1988 | 10–10 | 50.0% | #97 | 1,605 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1989 | 18–19 | 48.6% | #81 | 1,699 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1990 | 51–19 | 72.9% | #5 | 2,047 | 1 | 4 |
| 19 | 1985 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #137 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 52–17 | 75.4% | #6 | 2,091 | 1 | 8 |
| 20 | 1986 | 13–9 | 59.1% | #36 | 1,733 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 66–15 | 81.5% | #3 | 2,118 | 1 | 13 |
| 21 | 1987 | 24–16 | 60.0% | #52 | 1,802 | 0 | 1 | 1993 | 82–15 | 84.5% | #1 | 2,126 | 3 | 21 |
| 22 | 1988 | 44–16 | 73.3% | #14 | 1,884 | 0 | 2 | 1994 | 74–9 | 89.2% | #1 | 2,196 | 5 | 31 |
| 23 | 1989 | 30–16 | 65.2% | #22 | 1,863 | 0 | 4 | 1995 | 66–17 | 79.5% | #1 | 2,134 | 7 | 36 |
| 24 | 1990 | 43–20 | 68.3% | #12 | 1,861 | 0 | 6 | 1996 | 66–10 | 86.8% | #1 | 2,183 | 8 | 44 |
| 25 | 1991 | 28–21 | 57.1% | #31 | 1,781 | 0 | 7 | 1997 | 55–10 | 84.6% | #1 | 2,187 | 10 | 52 |
| 26 | 1992 | 28–27 | 50.9% | #30 | 1,726 | 0 | 7 | 1998 | 61–18 | 77.2% | #1 | 2,042 | 11 | 56 |
| 27 | 1993 | 37–28 | 56.9% | #27 | 1,749 | 0 | 7 | 1999 | 38–9 | 80.9% | #3 | 2,117 | 12 | 61 |
| 28 | 1994 | 37–29 | 56.1% | #32 | 1,773 | 0 | 7 | 2000 | 40–11 | 78.4% | #3 | 2,068 | 13 | 63 |
| 29 | 1995 | 14–22 | 38.9% | #89 | 1,628 | 0 | 7 | 2001 | 33–15 | 68.8% | #10 | 2,003 | 13 | 63 |
| 30 | 1996 | 11–20 | 35.5% | #85 | 1,585 | 0 | 7 | 2002 | 25–14 | 64.1% | #13 | 1,977 | 14 | 64 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |