H2H data updated: 2026-07-14 14:15 UTC
Luiz Mattar vs J. Fitzgerald H2H: 1-0
Luiz Mattar holds a 1–0 lead over J. Fitzgerald in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Luiz Mattar leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Luiz Mattar won the 1986 Roland Garros second round 6-7 7-5 6-4 6-3.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
BRA
Age 62
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
AUS
Age 65
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 30, 1986* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R64 | Clay | Luiz Mattar | 6-7 7-5 6-4 6-3 | J. Fitzgerald | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Luiz Mattar | #888 | #29 | 796 | 1,772 | 176 | 161 | 52.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 |
| J. Fitzgerald | #765 | #25 | 321 | 1,857 | 230 | 221 | 51.0% | 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 | Luiz Mattar | J. Fitzgerald | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1979 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #305 | 1,470 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1980 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1981 | 26–24 | 52.0% | #60 | 1,674 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1982 | 22–22 | 50.0% | #78 | 1,696 | 0 | 2 |
| 22 | 1986 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #95 | 1,566 | 0 | 0 | 1983 | 32–19 | 62.7% | #43 | 1,790 | 0 | 4 |
| 23 | 1987 | 24–17 | 58.5% | #38 | 1,696 | 0 | 1 | 1984 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #37 | 1,786 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 1988 | 19–16 | 54.3% | #44 | 1,691 | 0 | 2 | 1985 | 16–21 | 43.2% | #91 | 1,665 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 1989 | 23–15 | 60.5% | #62 | 1,684 | 0 | 4 | 1986 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #102 | 1,654 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 1990 | 25–18 | 58.1% | #43 | 1,696 | 0 | 5 | 1987 | 18–18 | 50.0% | #73 | 1,679 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | 1991 | 17–24 | 41.5% | #113 | 1,635 | 0 | 5 | 1988 | 36–19 | 65.5% | #25 | 1,778 | 0 | 6 |
| 28 | 1992 | 21–16 | 56.8% | #51 | 1,718 | 0 | 6 | 1989 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #117 | 1,651 | 0 | 6 |
| 29 | 1993 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #70 | 1,691 | 0 | 6 | 1990 | 6–13 | 31.6% | #188 | 1,587 | 0 | 6 |
| 30 | 1994 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #73 | 1,696 | 0 | 7 | 1991 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #205 | 1,610 | 0 | 6 |
| 31 | 1995 | 2–8 | 20.0% | #404 | 1,593 | 0 | 7 | 1992 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #166 | 1,618 | 0 | 6 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1993 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #298 | 1,582 | 0 | 6 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1994 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #792 | 1,575 | 0 | 6 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #765 | 1,570 | 0 | 6 |