H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Diego Nargiso vs Leonardo Lavalle H2H: 0-1
Leonardo Lavalle holds a 1–0 lead over Diego Nargiso in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Leonardo Lavalle leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Leonardo Lavalle won the 1992 Schenectady third round 5-7 6-1 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.
ITA
Age 56
Left-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
MEX
Age 59
Left-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 27, 1992* | Schenectady | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Leonardo Lavalle | 5-7 6-1 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diego Nargiso | #1,400 | #67 | 531 | 1,702 | 94 | 152 | 38.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Leonardo Lavalle | #968 | #51 | 483 | 1,728 | 60 | 96 | 38.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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 | Diego Nargiso | Leonardo Lavalle | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1985 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #87 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1988 | 10–12 | 45.5% | #90 | 1,621 | 0 | 0 | 1986 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #105 | 1,588 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1989 | 11–19 | 36.7% | #150 | 1,590 | 0 | 0 | 1987 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #224 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1990 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #147 | 1,618 | 0 | 0 | 1988 | 9–7 | 56.2% | #64 | 1,659 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1991 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #109 | 1,603 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 11–15 | 42.3% | #132 | 1,645 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1992 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #88 | 1,596 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #183 | 1,593 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1993 | 8–23 | 25.8% | #120 | 1,525 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 5–3 | 62.5% | #133 | 1,656 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 1994 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #118 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 7–15 | 31.8% | #99 | 1,600 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 1995 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #183 | 1,528 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #309 | 1,569 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 1996 | 2–8 | 20.0% | #280 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #213 | 1,543 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 1997 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #152 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #362 | 1,543 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 1998 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #128 | 1,563 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #313 | 1,550 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 1999 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #220 | 1,524 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #439 | 1,542 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2000 | 8–4 | 66.7% | #134 | 1,612 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #400 | 1,552 | 0 | 1 |