H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 14:16 UTC
Pablo Cuevas vs Tobias Kamke H2H: 1-0
Pablo Cuevas holds a 1–0 lead over Tobias Kamke in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Pablo Cuevas leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Pablo Cuevas won the 2016 Roland Garros first round 3-6 6-2 6-3 7-6(4).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
URU
Age 40
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 24, 2016* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R128 | Clay | Pablo Cuevas | 3-6 6-2 6-3 7-6(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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pablo Cuevas | #841 | #19 | 1,865 | 1,960 | 211 | 212 | 49.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| 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 | Pablo Cuevas | Tobias Kamke | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #210 | 1,502 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2008 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #142 | 1,631 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,508 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2009 | 18–15 | 54.5% | #50 | 1,744 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 2010 | 20–22 | 47.6% | #63 | 1,760 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 7–8 | 46.7% | #67 | 1,638 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2011 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #142 | 1,743 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #96 | 1,736 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 6–18 | 25.0% | #98 | 1,626 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2013 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #220 | 1,718 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #74 | 1,723 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2014 | 17–12 | 58.6% | #30 | 1,842 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 9–15 | 37.5% | #97 | 1,670 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2015 | 28–25 | 52.8% | #40 | 1,815 | 0 | 3 | 2015 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #277 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2016 | 33–22 | 60.0% | #22 | 1,818 | 0 | 5 | 2016 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #118 | 1,707 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2017 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #32 | 1,788 | 0 | 6 | 2017 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #233 | 1,616 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | 2018 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #88 | 1,766 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2019 | 22–23 | 48.9% | #45 | 1,740 | 0 | 6 | 2019 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #242 | 1,567 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |