H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 19:16 UTC
Lleyton Hewitt vs Tobias Kamke H2H: 1-0
Lleyton Hewitt holds a 1–0 lead over Tobias Kamke in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Lleyton Hewitt leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Lleyton Hewitt won the 2012 US Open first round 4-6 6-2 6-1 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.
AUS
Age 45
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
GER
Age 40
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 29, 2012* | US Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Lleyton Hewitt | 4-6 6-2 6-1 6-4 | Tobias Kamke | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lleyton Hewitt | #636 | #1 | 5,205 | 2,159 | 564 | 241 | 70.1% | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 23 | 30 |
| Tobias Kamke | #1,114 | #64 | 744 | 1,764 | 60 | 99 | 37.7% | 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 | Lleyton Hewitt | Tobias Kamke | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #550 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1998 | 10–9 | 52.6% | #100 | 1,614 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1999 | 40–18 | 69.0% | #25 | 1,853 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2000 | 53–15 | 77.9% | #7 | 1,993 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 2001 | 71–15 | 82.6% | #1 | 2,116 | 1 | 12 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2002 | 61–16 | 79.2% | #1 | 2,062 | 2 | 17 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #210 | 1,502 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2003 | 29–10 | 74.4% | #17 | 1,939 | 2 | 19 | 2008 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,508 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2004 | 64–16 | 80.0% | #3 | 2,076 | 2 | 23 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 2005 | 36–9 | 80.0% | #4 | 2,092 | 2 | 24 | 2010 | 7–8 | 46.7% | #67 | 1,638 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2006 | 32–14 | 69.6% | #20 | 1,964 | 2 | 25 | 2011 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #96 | 1,736 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2007 | 34–15 | 69.4% | #21 | 1,925 | 2 | 26 | 2012 | 6–18 | 25.0% | #98 | 1,626 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2008 | 17–10 | 63.0% | #67 | 1,936 | 2 | 26 | 2013 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #74 | 1,723 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2009 | 33–19 | 63.5% | #22 | 1,956 | 2 | 27 | 2014 | 9–15 | 37.5% | #97 | 1,670 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2010 | 18–11 | 62.1% | #54 | 1,907 | 2 | 28 | 2015 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #277 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2011 | 8–9 | 47.1% | #186 | 1,817 | 2 | 28 | 2016 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #118 | 1,707 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2012 | 13–11 | 54.2% | #83 | 1,867 | 2 | 28 | 2017 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #233 | 1,616 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | 2013 | 22–18 | 55.0% | #60 | 1,884 | 2 | 28 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2014 | 19–15 | 55.9% | #50 | 1,841 | 2 | 30 | 2019 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #242 | 1,567 | 0 | 0 |
| 34 | 2015 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #307 | 1,715 | 2 | 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2016 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #633 | 1,727 | 2 | 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |