H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Ivan Lendl vs Ricardo Cano H2H: 1-0
Ivan Lendl holds a 1–0 lead over Ricardo Cano in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Ivan Lendl leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Ivan Lendl won the 1980 Indianapolis second round 2-6 6-0 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.
USA
Age 66
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
ARG
Age 75
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 4, 1980 | Indianapolis | ATP 250 | R64 | Clay | Ivan Lendl | 2-6 6-0 6-4 | Ricardo Cano | Match data |
Career Comparison
| Player | Current | Peak | Pts | Elo | W | L | Win % | GS | 1000 | Finals | 500 | 250 | Titles |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ivan Lendl | #667 | #1 | 3,420 | 2,424 | 1,051 | 229 | 82.1% | 8 | 11 | 6 | 0 | 69 | 94 |
| Ricardo Cano | #768 | #41 | 0 | 1,792 | 142 | 147 | 49.1% | 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 | Ivan Lendl | Ricardo Cano | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 1978 | 9–7 | 56.2% | #74 | 1,637 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1979 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #21 | 1,882 | 0 | 0 | 1970 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,493 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1980 | 103–28 | 78.6% | #6 | 2,131 | 0 | 7 | 1971 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1981 | 95–12 | 88.8% | #3 | 2,321 | 0 | 17 | 1972 | 2–5 | 28.6% | — | 1,476 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1982 | 104–8 | 92.9% | #3 | 2,369 | 0 | 32 | 1973 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1983 | 75–16 | 82.4% | #2 | 2,235 | 0 | 39 | 1974 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #274 | 1,502 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1984 | 58–12 | 82.9% | #3 | 2,234 | 1 | 42 | 1975 | 18–13 | 58.1% | #42 | 1,737 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1985 | 80–6 | 93.0% | #1 | 2,367 | 2 | 53 | 1976 | 43–26 | 62.3% | #51 | 1,733 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1986 | 75–6 | 92.6% | #1 | 2,355 | 4 | 62 | 1977 | 18–24 | 42.9% | #121 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1987 | 75–7 | 91.5% | #1 | 2,362 | 6 | 70 | 1978 | 10–13 | 43.5% | #81 | 1,629 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 1988 | 41–8 | 83.7% | #2 | 2,220 | 6 | 73 | 1979 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #169 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 1989 | 80–7 | 92.0% | #1 | 2,261 | 7 | 83 | 1980 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #73 | 1,555 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 1990 | 54–12 | 81.8% | #3 | 2,130 | 8 | 88 | 1981 | 33–24 | 57.9% | #62 | 1,718 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 1991 | 55–18 | 75.3% | #5 | 2,031 | 8 | 91 | 1982 | 3–11 | 21.4% | #91 | 1,608 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | 1992 | 51–24 | 68.0% | #8 | 2,006 | 8 | 92 | 1983 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #219 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 |
| 33 | 1993 | 33–23 | 58.9% | #19 | 1,780 | 8 | 94 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 1994 | 28–18 | 60.9% | #55 | 1,754 | 8 | 94 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |