H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
John Isner vs Pablo Cuevas H2H: 1-0
John Isner holds a 1–0 lead over Pablo Cuevas in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, John Isner leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, John Isner won the 2018 Madrid Masters fourth round 6-7(9) 7-6(3) 7-6(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 41
Right-Handed
208 cm / 6'10"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
URU
Age 40
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 11, 2018* | Madrid Masters | Masters 1000 | R16 | Clay | John Isner | 6-7(9) 7-6(3) 7-6(4) | Pablo Cuevas | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| John Isner | #660 | #8 | 3,720 | 2,053 | 467 | 293 | 61.4% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 16 |
| Pablo Cuevas | #841 | #19 | 1,865 | 1,960 | 211 | 212 | 49.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
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 | John Isner | Pablo Cuevas | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #113 | 1,551 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2007 | 8–5 | 61.5% | #106 | 1,656 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #142 | 1,631 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2008 | 11–19 | 36.7% | #144 | 1,608 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 18–15 | 54.5% | #50 | 1,744 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2009 | 27–18 | 60.0% | #34 | 1,828 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 20–22 | 47.6% | #63 | 1,760 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2010 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #19 | 1,882 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #142 | 1,743 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2011 | 34–19 | 64.2% | #18 | 2,021 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2012 | 38–18 | 67.9% | #14 | 1,965 | 0 | 5 | 2013 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #220 | 1,718 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2013 | 38–22 | 63.3% | #14 | 1,983 | 0 | 7 | 2014 | 17–12 | 58.6% | #30 | 1,842 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2014 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #19 | 1,922 | 0 | 9 | 2015 | 28–25 | 52.8% | #40 | 1,815 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2015 | 45–23 | 66.2% | #11 | 2,026 | 0 | 10 | 2016 | 33–22 | 60.0% | #22 | 1,818 | 0 | 5 |
| 31 | 2016 | 30–20 | 60.0% | #19 | 2,019 | 0 | 10 | 2017 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #32 | 1,788 | 0 | 6 |
| 32 | 2017 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #17 | 1,984 | 0 | 12 | 2018 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #88 | 1,766 | 0 | 6 |
| 33 | 2018 | 32–22 | 59.3% | #10 | 1,956 | 0 | 14 | 2019 | 22–23 | 48.9% | #45 | 1,740 | 0 | 6 |
| 34 | 2019 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #19 | 1,921 | 0 | 15 | 2020 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #67 | 1,691 | 0 | 6 |
| 35 | 2020 | 10–7 | 58.8% | #25 | 1,845 | 0 | 15 | 2021 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #97 | 1,651 | 0 | 6 |
| 36 | 2021 | 23–11 | 67.6% | #24 | 1,933 | 0 | 16 | 2022 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #269 | 1,654 | 0 | 6 |
| 37 | 2022 | 22–16 | 57.9% | #41 | 1,891 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2023 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #172 | 1,698 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |