H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 01:16 UTC
Paolo Lorenzi vs Federico Delbonis H2H: 0-4
Federico Delbonis holds a 4–0 lead over Paolo Lorenzi in their ATP head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Federico Delbonis leads 4–0 on clay. Most recently, Federico Delbonis won the 2017 Rio de Janeiro third round 4-6 6-1 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.
ITA
Age 44
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H
0
–
4
4 main draw meetings
ARG
Age 35
Left-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 23, 2017* | Rio de Janeiro | ATP 500 | R32 | Clay | Federico Delbonis | 4-6 6-1 6-4 | Paolo Lorenzi | Match data |
| Feb 19, 2016* | Rio de Janeiro | ATP 250 | R16 | Clay | Federico Delbonis | 6-3 6-0 | Paolo Lorenzi | Match data |
| Feb 27, 2015* | Buenos Aires | ATP 250 | R16 | Clay | Federico Delbonis | 6-4 6-2 | Paolo Lorenzi | Match data |
| Mar 2, 2014* | Sao Paulo | ATP 250 | F | Clay | Federico Delbonis | 4-6 6-3 6-4 | Paolo Lorenzi | 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 Lorenzi | #1,033 | #33 | 1,223 | 1,823 | 104 | 180 | 36.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Federico Delbonis | #939 | #33 | 1,435 | 1,905 | 158 | 195 | 44.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
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 Lorenzi | Federico Delbonis | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #195 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #160 | 1,469 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #166 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #133 | 1,716 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 12–8 | 60.0% | #55 | 1,757 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 20–27 | 42.6% | #60 | 1,660 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2006 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #168 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #52 | 1,692 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2007 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #294 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 24–22 | 52.2% | #41 | 1,754 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 11–10 | 52.4% | #68 | 1,811 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #84 | 1,437 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #80 | 1,723 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2010 | 2–14 | 12.5% | #143 | 1,436 | 0 | 0 | 2019 | 14–20 | 41.2% | #76 | 1,686 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2011 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #108 | 1,516 | 0 | 0 | 2020 | 9–12 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,705 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 2012 | 8–17 | 32.0% | #64 | 1,602 | 0 | 0 | 2021 | 24–24 | 50.0% | #44 | 1,719 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | 2013 | 13–24 | 35.1% | #109 | 1,644 | 0 | 0 | 2022 | 8–21 | 27.6% | #125 | 1,672 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | 2014 | 11–14 | 44.0% | #64 | 1,663 | 0 | 0 | 2023 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #279 | 1,599 | 0 | 2 |
| 33 | 2015 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #68 | 1,615 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2016 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #40 | 1,781 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2017 | 24–32 | 42.9% | #43 | 1,700 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2018 | 6–15 | 28.6% | #109 | 1,631 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 2019 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #115 | 1,628 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2020 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #146 | 1,536 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 39 | 2021 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #274 | 1,494 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |