H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 19:16 UTC
Rafael Nadal vs Peter Gojowczyk H2H: 2-0
Rafael Nadal holds a 2–0 lead over Peter Gojowczyk in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Rafael Nadal leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Rafael Nadal won the 2014 Beijing fourth round 6-3 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.
ESP
Age 40
Left-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
GER
Age 37
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 3, 2014* | Beijing | ATP 500 | R16 | Hard | Rafael Nadal | 6-3 6-4 | Peter Gojowczyk | Match data |
| Jan 4, 2014* | Doha | ATP 250 | SF | Hard | Rafael Nadal | 4-6 6-2 6-3 | Peter Gojowczyk | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rafael Nadal | #175 | #1 | 15,390 | 2,500 | 1,045 | 225 | 82.3% | 22 | 36 | 0 | 18 | 15 | 91 |
| Peter Gojowczyk | #1,284 | #39 | 1,175 | 1,885 | 75 | 97 | 43.6% | 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 | Rafael Nadal | Peter Gojowczyk | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2002 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #200 | 1,508 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2003 | 14–11 | 56.0% | #49 | 1,640 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2004 | 27–17 | 61.4% | #51 | 1,735 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2005 | 77–10 | 88.5% | #2 | 2,155 | 1 | 12 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 2006 | 58–12 | 82.9% | #2 | 2,129 | 2 | 17 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #494 | 1,515 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2007 | 71–15 | 82.6% | #2 | 2,154 | 3 | 23 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2008 | 73–11 | 86.9% | #1 | 2,254 | 5 | 30 | 2012 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #181 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2009 | 64–14 | 82.1% | #2 | 2,176 | 6 | 35 | 2013 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #162 | 1,608 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2010 | 71–10 | 87.7% | #1 | 2,292 | 9 | 42 | 2014 | 7–8 | 46.7% | #79 | 1,697 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2011 | 64–15 | 81.0% | #2 | 2,260 | 10 | 45 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #194 | 1,652 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2012 | 42–7 | 85.7% | #4 | 2,333 | 11 | 49 | 2016 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #189 | 1,678 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2013 | 75–7 | 91.5% | #1 | 2,437 | 13 | 59 | 2017 | 14–9 | 60.9% | #60 | 1,809 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2014 | 49–11 | 81.7% | #3 | 2,270 | 14 | 63 | 2018 | 23–25 | 47.9% | #59 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2015 | 60–20 | 75.0% | #5 | 2,231 | 14 | 66 | 2019 | 10–21 | 32.3% | #117 | 1,671 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2016 | 36–13 | 73.5% | #9 | 2,123 | 14 | 68 | 2020 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #145 | 1,621 | 0 | 1 |
| 31 | 2017 | 67–12 | 84.8% | #1 | 2,277 | 16 | 74 | 2021 | 13–9 | 59.1% | #86 | 1,756 | 0 | 1 |
| 32 | 2018 | 43–4 | 91.5% | #2 | 2,339 | 17 | 79 | 2022 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #235 | 1,585 | 0 | 1 |
| 33 | 2019 | 54–9 | 85.7% | #1 | 2,345 | 19 | 83 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2020 | 23–5 | 82.1% | #2 | 2,299 | 20 | 85 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2021 | 24–5 | 82.8% | #6 | 2,269 | 20 | 87 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2022 | 40–9 | 81.6% | #2 | 2,194 | 22 | 91 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 2023 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #670 | 2,155 | 22 | 91 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2024 | 11–6 | 64.7% | #153 | 2,046 | 22 | 91 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |