H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Fernando Luna vs Tomas Smid H2H: 1-2
Tomas Smid holds a 2–1 lead over Fernando Luna in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Tomas Smid leads 2–1 on clay. Most recently, Fernando Luna won the 1986 Monte Carlo third round 6-3 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.
ESP
Age 68
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H
1
–
2
3 main draw meetings
CZE
Age 70
Right-Handed
190 cm / 6'3"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 24, 1986* | Monte Carlo | ATP 250 | R32 | Clay | Fernando Luna | 6-3 6-3 | Tomas Smid | Match data |
| Apr 29, 1982* | Madrid | ATP 250 | R32 | Clay | Tomas Smid | 6-1 7-6 | Fernando Luna | Match data |
| Jun 23, 1980* | Vienna | ATP 250 | QF | Clay | Tomas Smid | 6-3 7-5 | Fernando Luna | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fernando Luna | #723 | #33 | 310 | 1,777 | 167 | 160 | 51.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tomas Smid | #975 | #11 | 28 | 1,998 | 497 | 318 | 61.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 |
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 | Fernando Luna | Tomas Smid | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 19 | 1977 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #250 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1978 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #340 | 1,540 | 0 | 0 | 1976 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #154 | 1,542 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1979 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #87 | 1,515 | 0 | 0 | 1977 | 16–18 | 47.1% | #67 | 1,637 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1980 | 18–13 | 58.1% | #66 | 1,707 | 0 | 0 | 1978 | 36–25 | 59.0% | #36 | 1,799 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 1981 | 17–15 | 53.1% | #81 | 1,695 | 0 | 0 | 1979 | 50–25 | 66.7% | #27 | 1,870 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 1982 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #60 | 1,728 | 0 | 0 | 1980 | 45–21 | 68.2% | #23 | 1,950 | 0 | 4 |
| 25 | 1983 | 19–13 | 59.4% | #53 | 1,729 | 0 | 0 | 1981 | 54–28 | 65.9% | #28 | 1,864 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 1984 | 12–14 | 46.2% | #70 | 1,644 | 0 | 0 | 1982 | 62–28 | 68.9% | #24 | 1,901 | 0 | 7 |
| 27 | 1985 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #111 | 1,618 | 0 | 0 | 1983 | 59–30 | 66.3% | #17 | 1,902 | 0 | 9 |
| 28 | 1986 | 19–14 | 57.6% | #52 | 1,690 | 0 | 0 | 1984 | 46–27 | 63.0% | #16 | 1,840 | 0 | 9 |
| 29 | 1987 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #261 | 1,643 | 0 | 0 | 1985 | 47–27 | 63.5% | #19 | 1,804 | 0 | 10 |
| 30 | 1988 | 18–12 | 60.0% | #59 | 1,705 | 0 | 0 | 1986 | 28–24 | 53.8% | #54 | 1,721 | 0 | 10 |
| 31 | 1989 | 11–16 | 40.7% | #135 | 1,565 | 0 | 0 | 1987 | 30–26 | 53.6% | #31 | 1,729 | 0 | 10 |
| 32 | 1990 | 8–10 | 44.4% | #110 | 1,588 | 0 | 0 | 1988 | 17–23 | 42.5% | #115 | 1,656 | 0 | 10 |
| 33 | 1991 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #356 | 1,535 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #453 | 1,537 | 0 | 10 |