H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Andres Gomez vs Cassio Motta H2H: 2-1
Andres Gomez holds a 2–1 lead over Cassio Motta in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Andres Gomez leads 2–1 on clay. Most recently, Andres Gomez won the 1982 Sao Paulo fourth round 4-6 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.
ECU
Age 66
Left-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
H2H
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
BRA
Age 66
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 19, 1982* | Sao Paulo | ATP 250 | R16 | Clay | Andres Gomez | 4-6 6-2 6-3 | Cassio Motta | Match data |
| Nov 6, 1982* | Quito | ATP 250 | QF | Clay | Andres Gomez | 4-6 6-3 6-3 | Cassio Motta | Match data |
| Jul 15, 1982* | Zell Am See Wct | ATP 250 | R32 | Clay | Cassio Motta | 7-5 6-3 | Andres Gomez | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andres Gomez | #1,171 | #4 | 2,005 | 2,092 | 502 | 261 | 65.8% | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 21 |
| Cassio Motta | #576 | #48 | 352 | 1,740 | 105 | 164 | 39.0% | 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 | Andres Gomez | Cassio Motta | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 19 | 1979 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #61 | 1,638 | 0 | 0 | 1979 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #109 | 1,513 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1980 | 36–23 | 61.0% | #42 | 1,800 | 0 | 0 | 1980 | 0–7 | 0.0% | #255 | 1,462 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1981 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #37 | 1,899 | 0 | 1 | 1981 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #255 | 1,470 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1982 | 51–25 | 67.1% | #15 | 1,885 | 0 | 3 | 1982 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #86 | 1,549 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1983 | 43–20 | 68.3% | #14 | 1,959 | 0 | 4 | 1983 | 14–21 | 40.0% | #79 | 1,679 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1984 | 60–13 | 82.2% | #5 | 2,072 | 0 | 9 | 1984 | 12–19 | 38.7% | #107 | 1,616 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1985 | 26–14 | 65.0% | #15 | 1,970 | 0 | 10 | 1985 | 7–11 | 38.9% | #136 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1986 | 57–20 | 74.0% | #10 | 1,898 | 0 | 14 | 1986 | 10–10 | 50.0% | #49 | 1,658 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1987 | 46–18 | 71.9% | #11 | 1,913 | 0 | 15 | 1987 | 12–17 | 41.4% | #122 | 1,626 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 1988 | 34–18 | 65.4% | #24 | 1,808 | 0 | 15 | 1988 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #74 | 1,592 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 1989 | 32–17 | 65.3% | #17 | 1,868 | 0 | 17 | 1989 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #134 | 1,560 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 1990 | 38–27 | 58.5% | #6 | 1,726 | 1 | 20 | 1990 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #105 | 1,537 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 1991 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #70 | 1,722 | 1 | 21 | 1991 | 2–8 | 20.0% | #216 | 1,475 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | 1992 | 10–12 | 45.5% | #179 | 1,676 | 1 | 21 | 1992 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #198 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 |
| 33 | 1993 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #402 | 1,606 | 1 | 21 | 1993 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #693 | 1,518 | 0 | 0 |