H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Kim Warwick vs Cassio Motta H2H: 1-0
Kim Warwick holds a 1–0 lead over Cassio Motta in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Kim Warwick leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Kim Warwick won the 1982 Guaruja third round 6-2 6-2.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
AUS
Age 74
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
BRA
Age 66
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 21, 1982* | Guaruja | ATP 250 | R32 | Clay | Kim Warwick | 6-2 6-2 | Cassio Motta | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kim Warwick | #1,294 | #15 | 15 | 1,945 | 290 | 273 | 51.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Cassio Motta | #576 | #48 | 352 | 1,740 | 105 | 164 | 39.0% | 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 | Kim Warwick | Cassio Motta | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 1969 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1970 | 6–8 | 42.9% | — | 1,472 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1971 | 4–7 | 36.4% | — | 1,467 | 0 | 0 | 1979 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #109 | 1,513 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1972 | 11–9 | 55.0% | — | 1,569 | 0 | 0 | 1980 | 0–7 | 0.0% | #255 | 1,462 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1973 | 11–22 | 33.3% | #108 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 | 1981 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #255 | 1,470 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1974 | 30–23 | 56.6% | #48 | 1,717 | 0 | 0 | 1982 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #86 | 1,549 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1975 | 28–24 | 53.8% | #49 | 1,726 | 0 | 0 | 1983 | 14–21 | 40.0% | #79 | 1,679 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1976 | 28–32 | 46.7% | #67 | 1,746 | 0 | 1 | 1984 | 12–19 | 38.7% | #107 | 1,616 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1977 | 35–29 | 54.7% | #50 | 1,710 | 0 | 1 | 1985 | 7–11 | 38.9% | #136 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1978 | 29–23 | 55.8% | #41 | 1,788 | 0 | 1 | 1986 | 10–10 | 50.0% | #49 | 1,658 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1979 | 37–27 | 57.8% | #52 | 1,804 | 0 | 2 | 1987 | 12–17 | 41.4% | #122 | 1,626 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 1980 | 39–25 | 60.9% | #36 | 1,926 | 0 | 3 | 1988 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #74 | 1,592 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 1981 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #29 | 1,743 | 0 | 3 | 1989 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #134 | 1,560 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 1982 | 15–15 | 50.0% | #36 | 1,799 | 0 | 3 | 1990 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #105 | 1,537 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 1983 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #99 | 1,688 | 0 | 3 | 1991 | 2–8 | 20.0% | #216 | 1,475 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | 1984 | 6–5 | 54.5% | #196 | 1,686 | 0 | 3 | 1992 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #198 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 |
| 33 | 1985 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #497 | 1,664 | 0 | 3 | 1993 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #693 | 1,518 | 0 | 0 |
| 36 | 1988 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #600 | 1,652 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |