H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 19:16 UTC
Ernests Gulbis vs Lukas Lacko H2H: 1-0
Ernests Gulbis holds a 1–0 lead over Lukas Lacko in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Ernests Gulbis leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Ernests Gulbis won the 2010 Los Angeles third round 7-5 7-5.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
LAT
Age 37
Right-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
SVK
Age 38
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 26, 2018 | Dubai | ATP 500 | Q1 | Hard | Ernests Gulbis | 6-4 6-4 | Lukas Lacko | Match data |
| Jul 29, 2010* | Los Angeles | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Ernests Gulbis | 7-5 7-5 | Lukas Lacko | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ernests Gulbis | #893 | #10 | 2,725 | 2,139 | 221 | 232 | 48.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| Lukas Lacko | #1,505 | #44 | 917 | 1,837 | 81 | 133 | 37.9% | 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 | Ernests Gulbis | Lukas Lacko | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 2006 | 3–1 | 75.0% | #141 | 1,556 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2007 | 6–14 | 30.0% | #61 | 1,638 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2008 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #53 | 1,815 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #139 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2009 | 17–26 | 39.5% | #90 | 1,696 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #325 | 1,481 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2010 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #24 | 1,845 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #82 | 1,607 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2011 | 18–22 | 45.0% | #61 | 1,774 | 0 | 2 | 2010 | 16–21 | 43.2% | #89 | 1,668 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2012 | 12–17 | 41.4% | #136 | 1,727 | 0 | 2 | 2011 | 4–7 | 36.4% | #112 | 1,669 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2013 | 32–18 | 64.0% | #24 | 1,939 | 0 | 4 | 2012 | 12–18 | 40.0% | #51 | 1,657 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2014 | 41–21 | 66.1% | #13 | 1,917 | 0 | 6 | 2013 | 11–15 | 42.3% | #81 | 1,675 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2015 | 11–24 | 31.4% | #81 | 1,765 | 0 | 6 | 2014 | 11–17 | 39.3% | #94 | 1,735 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2016 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #151 | 1,785 | 0 | 6 | 2015 | 2–12 | 14.3% | #110 | 1,648 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2017 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #199 | 1,716 | 0 | 6 | 2016 | 4–7 | 36.4% | #122 | 1,682 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2018 | 9–6 | 60.0% | #95 | 1,813 | 0 | 6 | 2017 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #92 | 1,739 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2019 | 6–17 | 26.1% | #226 | 1,533 | 0 | 6 | 2018 | 11–16 | 40.7% | #114 | 1,677 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2020 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #181 | 1,562 | 0 | 6 | 2019 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #183 | 1,591 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | 2021 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #191 | 1,509 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2021 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #190 | 1,502 | 0 | 0 |