H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Pablo Cuevas vs Ivan Dodig H2H: 2-1
Pablo Cuevas holds a 2–1 lead over Ivan Dodig in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while Pablo Cuevas leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Ivan Dodig won the 2014 Shanghai Masters second round 7-5 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.
URU
Age 40
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
CRO
Age 41
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 7, 2014* | Shanghai Masters | Masters 1000 | R64 | Hard | Ivan Dodig | 7-5 6-2 | Pablo Cuevas | Match data |
| Sep 26, 2014* | Kuala Lumpur | ATP 250 | R16 | Hard | Pablo Cuevas | 3-6 7-5 7-5 | Ivan Dodig | Match data |
| Jul 30, 2009* | Umag | ATP 250 | R32 | Clay | Pablo Cuevas | 6-3 6-1 | Ivan Dodig | 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 |
| Ivan Dodig | #423 | #29 | 1,330 | 1,964 | 114 | 129 | 46.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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 | Ivan Dodig | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 21 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #113 | 1,551 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2008 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #142 | 1,631 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 23 | 2009 | 18–15 | 54.5% | #50 | 1,744 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #422 | 1,508 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2010 | 20–22 | 47.6% | #63 | 1,760 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #180 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2011 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #142 | 1,743 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 7–7 | 50.0% | #88 | 1,723 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 26–23 | 53.1% | #36 | 1,774 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2013 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #220 | 1,718 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #72 | 1,784 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2014 | 17–12 | 58.6% | #30 | 1,842 | 0 | 2 | 2013 | 31–23 | 57.4% | #33 | 1,916 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2015 | 28–25 | 52.8% | #40 | 1,815 | 0 | 3 | 2014 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #95 | 1,757 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2016 | 33–22 | 60.0% | #22 | 1,818 | 0 | 5 | 2015 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #87 | 1,666 | 0 | 1 |
| 31 | 2017 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #32 | 1,788 | 0 | 6 | 2016 | 7–16 | 30.4% | #147 | 1,571 | 0 | 1 |
| 32 | 2018 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #88 | 1,766 | 0 | 6 | 2017 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #336 | 1,602 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |