H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Paolo Cane vs Tomas Smid H2H: 3-1
Paolo Cane holds a 3–1 lead over Tomas Smid in their ATP head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Paolo Cane leads 3–0 on clay, while Tomas Smid leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Paolo Cane won the 1987 Rome second round 4-6 6-3 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.
ITA
Age 61
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
3
–
1
4 main draw meetings
CZE
Age 70
Right-Handed
190 cm / 6'3"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 13, 1987* | Rome | Masters 1000 | R64 | Clay | Paolo Cane | 4-6 6-3 6-3 | Tomas Smid | Match data |
| Oct 23, 1986* | Vienna | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Tomas Smid | 6-3 6-2 | Paolo Cane | Match data |
| May 15, 1986* | Rome | Masters 1000 | R32 | Clay | Paolo Cane | 4-6 6-4 7-5 | Tomas Smid | Match data |
| Apr 11, 1986* | Bari | ATP 250 | R16 | Clay | Paolo Cane | 3-6 6-3 7-6 | Tomas Smid | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Paolo Cane | #1,381 | #26 | 565 | 1,835 | 121 | 122 | 49.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Tomas Smid | #975 | #11 | 28 | 1,998 | 497 | 318 | 61.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 |
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 | Paolo Cane | Tomas Smid | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 1983 | 1–4 | 20.0% | — | 1,481 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1984 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #555 | 1,457 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1985 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #199 | 1,450 | 0 | 0 | 1976 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #154 | 1,542 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1986 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #44 | 1,667 | 0 | 1 | 1977 | 16–18 | 47.1% | #67 | 1,637 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1987 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #51 | 1,707 | 0 | 1 | 1978 | 36–25 | 59.0% | #36 | 1,799 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 1988 | 12–17 | 41.4% | #81 | 1,652 | 0 | 1 | 1979 | 50–25 | 66.7% | #27 | 1,870 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 1989 | 24–14 | 63.2% | #33 | 1,741 | 0 | 2 | 1980 | 45–21 | 68.2% | #23 | 1,950 | 0 | 4 |
| 25 | 1990 | 15–16 | 48.4% | #109 | 1,682 | 0 | 2 | 1981 | 54–28 | 65.9% | #28 | 1,864 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 1991 | 8–6 | 57.1% | #122 | 1,684 | 0 | 3 | 1982 | 62–28 | 68.9% | #24 | 1,901 | 0 | 7 |
| 27 | 1992 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #163 | 1,654 | 0 | 3 | 1983 | 59–30 | 66.3% | #17 | 1,902 | 0 | 9 |
| 28 | 1993 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #177 | 1,596 | 0 | 3 | 1984 | 46–27 | 63.0% | #16 | 1,840 | 0 | 9 |
| 29 | 1994 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #145 | 1,598 | 0 | 3 | 1985 | 47–27 | 63.5% | #19 | 1,804 | 0 | 10 |
| 30 | 1995 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #635 | 1,581 | 0 | 3 | 1986 | 28–24 | 53.8% | #54 | 1,721 | 0 | 10 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1987 | 30–26 | 53.6% | #31 | 1,729 | 0 | 10 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1988 | 17–23 | 42.5% | #115 | 1,656 | 0 | 10 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1989 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #453 | 1,537 | 0 | 10 |