H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Francisco Clavet vs David Wheaton H2H: 1-2
David Wheaton holds a 2–1 lead over Francisco Clavet in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while David Wheaton leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, David Wheaton won the 1993 Indianapolis second round 6-4 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.
ESP
Age 57
Left-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H
1
–
2
3 main draw meetings
USA
Age 57
Right-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 16, 1993 | Indianapolis | ATP 250 | R64 | Hard | David Wheaton | 6-4 6-2 | Francisco Clavet | Match data |
| Jun 24, 1992* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R128 | Grass | David Wheaton | 6-3 6-3 6-3 | Francisco Clavet | Match data |
| Mar 5, 1992* | Indian Wells Masters | Masters 1000 | R32 | Hard | Francisco Clavet | 6-2 6-3 | David Wheaton | 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 |
| David Wheaton | #874 | #12 | 1,506 | 1,984 | 231 | 190 | 54.9% | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 |
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 | David Wheaton | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1986 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #785 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1987 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #345 | 1,525 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1988 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #290 | 1,459 | 0 | 0 | 1988 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #441 | 1,494 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1989 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #188 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 18–16 | 52.9% | #66 | 1,683 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1990 | 11–15 | 42.3% | #90 | 1,576 | 0 | 1 | 1990 | 35–20 | 63.6% | #27 | 1,873 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1991 | 38–26 | 59.4% | #30 | 1,753 | 0 | 1 | 1991 | 33–19 | 63.5% | #17 | 1,955 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 1992 | 39–29 | 57.4% | #22 | 1,757 | 0 | 1 | 1992 | 30–23 | 56.6% | #44 | 1,804 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 1993 | 21–26 | 44.7% | #100 | 1,661 | 0 | 1 | 1993 | 27–25 | 51.9% | #54 | 1,730 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 1994 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #38 | 1,795 | 0 | 1 | 1994 | 28–18 | 60.9% | #39 | 1,782 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 1995 | 31–27 | 53.4% | #49 | 1,740 | 0 | 2 | 1995 | 28–24 | 53.8% | #44 | 1,705 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 1996 | 37–28 | 56.9% | #34 | 1,742 | 0 | 3 | 1996 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #131 | 1,704 | 0 | 3 |
| 28 | 1997 | 41–24 | 63.1% | #33 | 1,832 | 0 | 5 | 1997 | 10–8 | 55.6% | #148 | 1,704 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 1998 | 43–26 | 62.3% | #30 | 1,809 | 0 | 7 | 1998 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #229 | 1,620 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 1999 | 30–27 | 52.6% | #38 | 1,701 | 0 | 7 | 1999 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #565 | 1,582 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 2000 | 28–30 | 48.3% | #49 | 1,627 | 0 | 7 | 2000 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #313 | 1,562 | 0 | 3 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |