H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 07:16 UTC
Pablo Cuevas vs Marcos Baghdatis H2H: 1-0
Pablo Cuevas holds a 1–0 lead over Marcos Baghdatis in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Pablo Cuevas leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Pablo Cuevas won the 2016 Nottingham quarterfinal 6-4 4-6 7-6(8).
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
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
CYP
Age 41
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 24, 2016* | Nottingham | ATP 250 | QF | Grass | Pablo Cuevas | 6-4 4-6 7-6(8) | Marcos Baghdatis | 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 |
| Marcos Baghdatis | #179 | #8 | 2,111 | 1,952 | 324 | 272 | 54.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
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 | Marcos Baghdatis | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #159 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #55 | 1,694 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #113 | 1,551 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 33–20 | 62.3% | #12 | 1,842 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2008 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #142 | 1,631 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 44–22 | 66.7% | #16 | 1,937 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2009 | 18–15 | 54.5% | #50 | 1,744 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 12–12 | 50.0% | #98 | 1,815 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 2010 | 20–22 | 47.6% | #63 | 1,760 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 18–16 | 52.9% | #42 | 1,810 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2011 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #142 | 1,743 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 41–27 | 60.3% | #20 | 1,852 | 0 | 4 |
| 26 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 26–27 | 49.1% | #44 | 1,844 | 0 | 4 |
| 27 | 2013 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #220 | 1,718 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 31–24 | 56.4% | #36 | 1,897 | 0 | 4 |
| 28 | 2014 | 17–12 | 58.6% | #30 | 1,842 | 0 | 2 | 2013 | 14–22 | 38.9% | #87 | 1,804 | 0 | 4 |
| 29 | 2015 | 28–25 | 52.8% | #40 | 1,815 | 0 | 3 | 2014 | 7–11 | 38.9% | #85 | 1,703 | 0 | 4 |
| 30 | 2016 | 33–22 | 60.0% | #22 | 1,818 | 0 | 5 | 2015 | 26–19 | 57.8% | #46 | 1,869 | 0 | 4 |
| 31 | 2017 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #32 | 1,788 | 0 | 6 | 2016 | 26–23 | 53.1% | #36 | 1,884 | 0 | 4 |
| 32 | 2018 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #88 | 1,766 | 0 | 6 | 2017 | 18–16 | 52.9% | #102 | 1,839 | 0 | 4 |
| 33 | 2019 | 22–23 | 48.9% | #45 | 1,740 | 0 | 6 | 2018 | 12–17 | 41.4% | #124 | 1,723 | 0 | 4 |
| 34 | 2020 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #67 | 1,691 | 0 | 6 | 2019 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #179 | 1,740 | 0 | 4 |
| 35 | 2021 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #97 | 1,651 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2022 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #269 | 1,654 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |