H2H data updated: 2026-09-02 00:00 UTC

Jonathan Canter vs Robert Seguso H2H: 1-2

Robert Seguso holds a 2–1 lead over Jonathan Canter in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while Robert Seguso leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Robert Seguso won the 1987 Canadian Open round of 64 6-3 6-1.

USA Age 61 Right-Handed 185 cm / 6'1"
H2H
1 2
3 main draw meetings
USA Age 63 Right-Handed 190 cm / 6'3"

H2H Match Log

PlayerScorePlayerMatch DataDateRoundTournamentCategorySurface
Robert Seguso #77 6-3 6-1 Jonathan Canter #61 Match data Aug 12, 1987* R64 Canadian Open ATP 500 Hard
Robert Seguso #39 7-6 7-6 Jonathan Canter #68 Match data Jun 11, 1986* R64 Queen's Club Championships ATP 250 Grass
Jonathan Canter #128 4-6 6-4 6-3 6-4 Robert Seguso #61 Match data Aug 29, 1985* R128 US Open Grand Slam Hard

Estimated match date where the exact historical date is unavailable. Arrows show an edition's recorded category and documented modern equivalent; unresolved editions keep their recorded category. Asterisked totals include editions mapped from documented historical predecessor categories. Mapping details.

Career Comparison

Player Current Peak Pts Elo W L Win % GS 1000 including documented historical predecessor categories Finals 500 including documented historical predecessor categories 250 including documented historical predecessor categories Titles
Jonathan Canter #810 #36 244 1,794 68 96 41.5% 0 0 0 0 1 1
Robert Seguso #773 #22 242 1,886 88 91 49.2% 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 Jonathan Canter Robert Seguso
YrW-LWin %RankEloGSTitles YrW-LWin %RankEloGSTitles
17 1982 3–5 37.5% 1,506 0 0
18 1983 2–5 28.6% #279 1,513 0 0
19 1984 0–5 0.0% #225 1,464 0 0
20 1985 16–14 53.3% #73 1,637 0 1 1983 7–5 58.3% #321 1,585 0 0
21 1986 27–22 55.1% #41 1,733 0 1 1984 5–13 27.8% #209 1,561 0 0
22 1987 5–17 22.7% #169 1,601 0 1 1985 12–9 57.1% #56 1,669 0 0
23 1988 2–4 33.3% #182 1,584 0 1 1986 19–12 61.3% #28 1,843 0 0
24 1989 6–13 31.6% #183 1,533 0 1 1987 11–16 40.7% #135 1,678 0 0
25 1990 5–5 50.0% #191 1,559 0 1 1988 21–14 60.0% #37 1,779 0 0
26 1991 0–2 0.0% #408 1,539 0 1 1989 12–16 42.9% #86 1,678 0 0
27 1990 1–5 16.7% #367 1,617 0 0
28 1993 2–1 66.7% #190 1,580 0 1 1991 0–1 0.0% #818 1,594 0 0
29 1994 0–3 0.0% #388 1,543 0 1

Surface Results by Age

Seasons are aligned by the age each player spent most of that calendar year. Results cover completed main-draw matches. Bold green marks the higher win percentage when both players have at least 5 matches on that surface at the aligned age.

Age Jonathan Canter Robert Seguso
Yr HardClayGrassCarpet Yr HardClayGrassCarpet
W L M Win % W L M Win % W L M Win % W L M Win % W L M Win % W L M Win % W L M Win % W L M Win %
17 1982 0 1 1 0.0% 1 1 2 50.0% 0 1 1 0.0% 2 2 4 50.0%
18 1983 1 2 3 33.3% 0 2 2 0.0% 1 1 2 50.0%
19 1984 0 3 3 0.0% 0 2 2 0.0%
20 1985 9 7 16 56.3% 0 1 1 0.0% 7 5 12 58.3% 0 1 1 0.0% 1983 4 3 7 57.1% 3 2 5 60.0%
21 1986 19 11 30 63.3% 1 3 4 25.0% 1 2 3 33.3% 6 6 12 50.0% 1984 0 4 4 0.0% 1 5 6 16.7% 2 3 5 40.0% 2 1 3 66.7%
22 1987 4 9 13 30.8% 1 3 4 25.0% 0 2 2 0.0% 0 3 3 0.0% 1985 8 6 14 57.1% 3 2 5 60.0% 1 1 2 50.0%
23 1988 2 3 5 40.0% 0 1 1 0.0% 1986 9 5 14 64.3% 2 2 4 50.0% 6 2 8 75.0% 2 3 5 40.0%
24 1989 6 7 13 46.2% 0 3 3 0.0% 0 3 3 0.0% 1987 8 10 18 44.4% 0 1 1 0.0% 2 4 6 33.3% 1 1 2 50.0%
25 1990 4 4 8 50.0% 1 1 2 50.0% 1988 16 8 24 66.7% 0 1 1 0.0% 3 2 5 60.0% 2 3 5 40.0%
26 1991 0 2 2 0.0% 1989 7 11 18 38.9% 0 1 1 0.0% 1 2 3 33.3% 4 2 6 66.7%
27 1990 1 3 4 25.0% 0 2 2 0.0%
28 1993 2 1 3 66.7% 1991 0 1 1 0.0%
29 1994 0 2 2 0.0% 0 1 1 0.0%
Career 47 52 99 47.5% 3 11 14 21.4% 9 15 24 37.5% 9 18 27 33.3% 53 51 104 51.0% 3 10 13 23.1% 20 17 37 54.1% 12 13 25 48.0%

Advanced Statistics Comparison by Age

Seasons are aligned by the age each player spent most of that calendar year. Metrics are precomputed from eligible main-draw results; point-stat values use the available detailed sample. Bold green marks the stronger value when both underlying samples are sufficient. Lower is better for Schedule because a negative value means a tougher schedule. Career Schedule is normalized per 100 matches.

Age Jonathan Canter Robert Seguso
Yr Elo P+ Serve+ Return+ PD TPW% Hard Elo Clay Elo Grass Elo Set Win % Set Margin Dec. Set Tiebreak Pressure+ Schedule Yr Elo P+ Serve+ Return+ PD TPW% Hard Elo Clay Elo Grass Elo Set Win % Set Margin Dec. Set Tiebreak Pressure+ Schedule
17 1982 1506 102.0 +34 26.7% -2.00 1–0 +0.78
18 1983 1513 105.9 +20 27.8% -1.39 2–0 1–2 (33%) -0.20
19 1984 1464 104.0 +10 15.4% -2.00 0–2 +0.25
20 1985 1637 124.4 -52 +5 55.3% +0.49 2–7 (22%) 5–5 (50%) +2.25 1983 1586 110.7 -14 +9 51.4% +0.17 5–2 (71%) 4–5 (44%) +0.79
21 1986 1734 139.0 +15 -236 -104 54.3% +0.18 11–11 (50%) 10–11 (48%) +0.70 1984 1561 123.4 -5 -34 +40 34.6% -0.65 1–3 (25%) 1–4 (20%) +0.04
22 1987 1602 135.3 +44 -90 31.1% -1.15 2–5 (29%) 3–5 (38%) -0.84 1985 1669 140.1 -23 +13 58.2% +0.58 2–4 (33%) 6–3 (67%) +0.41
23 1988 1584 107.3 +48 31.3% -1.06 1–0 -0.02 1986 1844 150.7 -53 -294 -26 58.0% +0.02 4–3 (57%) 8–2 (80%) -2.58
24 1989 1533 119.1 +51 -31 42.6% -0.20 0–7 (0%) 1–7 (13%) +0.68 1987 1679 127.8 +28 +38 43.9% -0.68 4–5 (44%) 8–5 (62%) -0.54
25 1990 1559 113.9 +34 50.0% +0.61 3–3 (50%) 1–2 (33%) +0.78 1988 1780 146.3 +19 -42 53.6% +0.19 8–4 (67%) 12–4 (75%) -3.14
26 1991 1540 106.6 -0.46 +0.70 0.758 45.5% 16.7% -1.67 0–1 -0.20 1989 1678 126.1 +19 +27 41.8% -0.46 7–3 (70%) 2–5 (29%) -1.32
27 1990 1618 113.2 +18 30.8% -1.85 0–1 2–0 -0.11
28 1993 1580 116.6 +0.08 +1.04 1.103 51.6% +20 62.5% +0.50 1–1 +0.04 1991 1594 98.9 33.3% -1.33 0–1 +0.22
29 1994 1543 103.5 -1.08 -0.13 0.796 46.0% 0.0% -2.29 0–2 -0.22
Career 1794 132.1 -0.49 +0.52 0.887 48.0% +18 -163 -19 44.1% -0.29 23–37 (38%) 21–34 (38%) 88.2 +2.44 1886 142.8 +1 -138 +5 48.7% -0.19 31–26 (54%) 43–28 (61%) 113.4 -3.50

Career Rivalries

Each player's five most-played main-draw opponents. The current matchup is highlighted when it appears in a player's top five.