H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 07:16 UTC
Pablo Cuevas vs Antonio Veic H2H: 0-1
Antonio Veic holds a 1–0 lead over Pablo Cuevas in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Antonio Veic leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Antonio Veic won the 2011 Roland Garros first round 4-6 6-3 6-2 3-1 RET.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
URU
Age 40
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
CRO
Age 38
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 24, 2011* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R128 | Clay | Antonio Veic | 4-6 6-3 6-2 3-1 (ret.) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pablo Cuevas | #841 | #19 | 1,865 | 1,960 | 211 | 212 | 49.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| Antonio Veic | #888 | #119 | 468 | 1,719 | 10 | 22 | 31.2% | 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 | Pablo Cuevas | Antonio Veic | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #271 | 1,444 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #113 | 1,551 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #220 | 1,478 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2008 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #142 | 1,631 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #191 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2009 | 18–15 | 54.5% | #50 | 1,744 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #159 | 1,671 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2010 | 20–22 | 47.6% | #63 | 1,760 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #131 | 1,642 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2011 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #142 | 1,743 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #217 | 1,583 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2013 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #220 | 1,718 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #473 | 1,550 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2014 | 17–12 | 58.6% | #30 | 1,842 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2015 | 28–25 | 52.8% | #40 | 1,815 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2016 | 33–22 | 60.0% | #22 | 1,818 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2017 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #32 | 1,788 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2018 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #88 | 1,766 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2019 | 22–23 | 48.9% | #45 | 1,740 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2020 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #67 | 1,691 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2021 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #97 | 1,651 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2022 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #269 | 1,654 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |