H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 19:16 UTC
Gastao Elias vs Dominic Thiem H2H: 0-2
Dominic Thiem holds a 2–0 lead over Gastao Elias in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Dominic Thiem leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Dominic Thiem won the 2017 Sydney fourth round 6-7(5) 6-3 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.
Portugal
Age 35
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
0
–
2
2 main draw meetings
AUT
Age 32
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 13, 2017* | Sydney | ATP 250 | R16 | Hard | Dominic Thiem | 6-7(5) 6-3 7-5 | Gastao Elias | Match data |
| Feb 12, 2016* | Buenos Aires | ATP 250 | R16 | Clay | Dominic Thiem | 3-6 7-6(7) 6-3 | Gastao Elias | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gastao Elias | #499 | #57 | 831 | 1,732 | 24 | 45 | 34.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dominic Thiem | #1,174 | #3 | 9,125 | 2,241 | 337 | 207 | 61.9% | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 10 | 17 |
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 | Gastao Elias | Dominic Thiem | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 2006 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #936 | 1,493 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2008 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #578 | 1,416 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #638 | 1,495 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #309 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 4–2 | 66.7% | #139 | 1,580 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2011 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #172 | 1,454 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 22–23 | 48.9% | #39 | 1,848 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2012 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #139 | 1,365 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 36–26 | 58.1% | #20 | 1,889 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2013 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #175 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 58–24 | 70.7% | #8 | 2,015 | 0 | 7 |
| 23 | 2014 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #132 | 1,658 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 47–27 | 63.5% | #5 | 1,958 | 0 | 8 |
| 24 | 2015 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #133 | 1,541 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 50–21 | 70.4% | #8 | 2,064 | 0 | 11 |
| 25 | 2016 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #81 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 | 2019 | 48–17 | 73.8% | #4 | 2,145 | 0 | 16 |
| 26 | 2017 | 5–11 | 31.2% | #115 | 1,644 | 0 | 0 | 2020 | 24–7 | 77.4% | #3 | 2,200 | 1 | 17 |
| 27 | 2018 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #263 | 1,549 | 0 | 0 | 2021 | 8–8 | 50.0% | #15 | 2,014 | 1 | 17 |
| 28 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 18–16 | 52.9% | #102 | 1,907 | 1 | 17 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #98 | 1,799 | 1 | 17 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2024 | 1–9 | 10.0% | #524 | 1,627 | 1 | 17 |
| 34 | 2025 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #371 | 1,541 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |