H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Grant Connell vs Thomas Hogstedt H2H: 2-0
Grant Connell holds a 2–0 lead over Thomas Hogstedt in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Grant Connell leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Grant Connell won the 1991 Singapore quarterfinal 7-5 6-4.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
CAN
Age 60
Left-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
SWE
Age 62
Right-Handed
190 cm / 6'3"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 27, 1991* | Singapore | ATP 250 | QF | Hard | Grant Connell | 7-5 6-4 | Thomas Hogstedt | Match data |
| Apr 12, 1990* | Tokyo Outdoor | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Grant Connell | 6-4 7-6 | Thomas Hogstedt | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grant Connell | #1,367 | #67 | 517 | 1,754 | 66 | 96 | 40.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Thomas Hogstedt | #1,032 | #38 | 413 | 1,736 | 90 | 153 | 37.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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 | Grant Connell | Thomas Hogstedt | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1979 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #368 | 1,521 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1981 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #549 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1984 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #555 | 1,497 | 0 | 0 | 1982 | 9–10 | 47.4% | #82 | 1,588 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1985 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #570 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | 1983 | 15–16 | 48.4% | #63 | 1,690 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1984 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #84 | 1,639 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 1987 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #123 | 1,472 | 0 | 0 | 1985 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #210 | 1,520 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1988 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #134 | 1,517 | 0 | 0 | 1986 | 2–8 | 20.0% | #124 | 1,504 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 1989 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #94 | 1,586 | 0 | 0 | 1987 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #179 | 1,508 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 1990 | 19–21 | 47.5% | #92 | 1,665 | 0 | 0 | 1988 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #159 | 1,521 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 1991 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #79 | 1,665 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 8–10 | 44.4% | #133 | 1,613 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 1992 | 8–16 | 33.3% | #186 | 1,572 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 12–26 | 31.6% | #91 | 1,509 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 1993 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #946 | 1,561 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 11–23 | 32.4% | #130 | 1,518 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 1994 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #318 | 1,600 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #181 | 1,547 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 1995 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #713 | 1,551 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #306 | 1,530 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1994 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #309 | 1,546 | 0 | 1 |