H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Francisco Clavet vs Daniel Vacek H2H: 2-0
Francisco Clavet holds a 2–0 lead over Daniel Vacek in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Francisco Clavet leads 2–0 on clay. Most recently, Francisco Clavet won the 1999 Monte Carlo Masters second round 6-1 6-0.
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 57
Left-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
CZE
Age 55
Right-Handed
190 cm / 6'3"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 21, 1999* | Monte Carlo Masters | Masters 1000 | R64 | Clay | Francisco Clavet | 6-1 6-0 | Daniel Vacek | Match data |
| Sep 16, 1993* | Bucharest | ATP 250 | R32 | Clay | Francisco Clavet | 6-2 6-4 | Daniel Vacek | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Francisco Clavet | #911 | #18 | 1,613 | 1,869 | 388 | 340 | 53.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 8 |
| Daniel Vacek | #1,133 | #26 | 1,151 | 1,818 | 170 | 219 | 43.7% | 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 | Francisco Clavet | Daniel Vacek | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 19 | 1988 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #290 | 1,459 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1989 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #188 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #470 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1990 | 11–15 | 42.3% | #90 | 1,576 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 1991 | 38–26 | 59.4% | #30 | 1,753 | 0 | 1 | 1993 | 13–22 | 37.1% | #114 | 1,560 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1992 | 39–29 | 57.4% | #22 | 1,757 | 0 | 1 | 1994 | 25–27 | 48.1% | #45 | 1,711 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1993 | 21–26 | 44.7% | #100 | 1,661 | 0 | 1 | 1995 | 30–31 | 49.2% | #27 | 1,794 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1994 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #38 | 1,795 | 0 | 1 | 1996 | 22–28 | 44.0% | #71 | 1,694 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1995 | 31–27 | 53.4% | #49 | 1,740 | 0 | 2 | 1997 | 19–26 | 42.2% | #53 | 1,669 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1996 | 37–28 | 56.9% | #34 | 1,742 | 0 | 3 | 1998 | 25–29 | 46.3% | #50 | 1,672 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 1997 | 41–24 | 63.1% | #33 | 1,832 | 0 | 5 | 1999 | 29–31 | 48.3% | #43 | 1,744 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 1998 | 43–26 | 62.3% | #30 | 1,809 | 0 | 7 | 2000 | 4–13 | 23.5% | #238 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 1999 | 30–27 | 52.6% | #38 | 1,701 | 0 | 7 | 2001 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #393 | 1,595 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2000 | 28–30 | 48.3% | #49 | 1,627 | 0 | 7 | 2002 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #749 | 1,578 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | 2001 | 23–27 | 46.0% | #51 | 1,620 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2002 | 11–22 | 33.3% | #113 | 1,564 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2003 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #358 | 1,567 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |