H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Dick Crealy vs Ion Tiriac H2H: 0-2
Ion Tiriac holds a 2–0 lead over Dick Crealy in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Ion Tiriac leads 2–0 on clay. Most recently, Ion Tiriac won the 1968 Rome third round 4-6 6-3 6-1 6-2.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
AUS
Age 81
Right-Handed
191 cm / 6'3"
H2H
0
–
2
2 main draw meetings
ROU
Age 87
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 9, 1968* | Rome | Masters 1000 | R32 | Clay | Ion Tiriac | 4-6 6-3 6-1 6-2 | Dick Crealy | Match data |
| Apr 20, 1968* | Palermo | ATP 250 | SF | Clay | Ion Tiriac | 6-1 6-4 | Dick Crealy | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dick Crealy | #509 | #33 | 0 | 1,904 | 335 | 317 | 51.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Ion Tiriac | #439 | #55 | 0 | 1,899 | 228 | 190 | 54.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 8 |
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 | Dick Crealy | Ion Tiriac | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 23 | 1968 | 31–16 | 66.0% | — | 1,650 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 1969 | 30–23 | 56.6% | — | 1,641 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 25 | 1970 | 32–21 | 60.4% | — | 1,700 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 26 | 1971 | 10–23 | 30.3% | — | 1,609 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 1972 | 18–14 | 56.2% | — | 1,718 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 1973 | 31–33 | 48.4% | #51 | 1,625 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 1974 | 41–40 | 50.6% | #71 | 1,709 | 0 | 1 | 1968 | 60–12 | 83.3% | — | 1,804 | 0 | 6 |
| 30 | 1975 | 41–37 | 52.6% | #56 | 1,734 | 0 | 2 | 1969 | 14–14 | 50.0% | — | 1,755 | 0 | 6 |
| 31 | 1976 | 46–34 | 57.5% | #38 | 1,779 | 0 | 2 | 1970 | 34–22 | 60.7% | — | 1,795 | 0 | 7 |
| 32 | 1977 | 31–30 | 50.8% | #68 | 1,670 | 0 | 2 | 1971 | 27–16 | 62.8% | — | 1,778 | 0 | 8 |
| 33 | 1978 | 19–33 | 36.5% | #131 | 1,565 | 0 | 2 | 1972 | 21–25 | 45.7% | — | 1,654 | 0 | 8 |
| 34 | 1979 | 1–10 | 9.1% | #274 | 1,497 | 0 | 2 | 1973 | 35–35 | 50.0% | #74 | 1,683 | 0 | 8 |
| 35 | 1980 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #309 | 1,509 | 0 | 2 | 1974 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #72 | 1,622 | 0 | 8 |
| 36 | 1981 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #309 | 1,507 | 0 | 2 | 1975 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #138 | 1,589 | 0 | 8 |
| 37 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1976 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #248 | 1,534 | 0 | 8 |
| 38 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1977 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #103 | 1,633 | 0 | 8 |
| 39 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1978 | 2–10 | 16.7% | #263 | 1,523 | 0 | 8 |
| 40 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1979 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #439 | 1,525 | 0 | 8 |