H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Sjeng Schalken vs Juan Ignacio Chela H2H: 1-0
Sjeng Schalken holds a 1–0 lead over Juan Ignacio Chela in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Sjeng Schalken leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Sjeng Schalken won the 2001 Indian Wells Masters second round 4-6 7-6(5) 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.
NED
Age 49
Right-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
ARG
Age 46
Right-Handed
190 cm / 6'3"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 14, 2001* | Indian Wells Masters | Masters 1000 | R64 | Hard | Sjeng Schalken | 4-6 7-6(5) 6-3 | Juan Ignacio Chela | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sjeng Schalken | #677 | #11 | 1,790 | 1,934 | 280 | 254 | 52.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 9 |
| Juan Ignacio Chela | #967 | #15 | 1,510 | 1,909 | 306 | 268 | 53.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 6 |
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 | Sjeng Schalken | Juan Ignacio Chela | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 1994 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #148 | 1,501 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1995 | 17–14 | 54.8% | #69 | 1,645 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1996 | 26–26 | 50.0% | #65 | 1,687 | 0 | 2 | 1999 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #124 | 1,463 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1997 | 16–25 | 39.0% | #59 | 1,632 | 0 | 3 | 2000 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #63 | 1,540 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 1998 | 22–30 | 42.3% | #66 | 1,592 | 0 | 3 | 2001 | 10–10 | 50.0% | #70 | 1,594 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1999 | 28–26 | 51.9% | #44 | 1,744 | 0 | 4 | 2002 | 44–27 | 62.0% | #23 | 1,783 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2000 | 35–26 | 57.4% | #22 | 1,824 | 0 | 5 | 2003 | 35–27 | 56.5% | #38 | 1,762 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 2001 | 36–27 | 57.1% | #26 | 1,846 | 0 | 6 | 2004 | 33–25 | 56.9% | #26 | 1,735 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2002 | 36–27 | 57.1% | #20 | 1,839 | 0 | 7 | 2005 | 28–26 | 51.9% | #39 | 1,691 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 2003 | 39–23 | 62.9% | #18 | 1,826 | 0 | 9 | 2006 | 27–26 | 50.9% | #33 | 1,721 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 2004 | 17–18 | 48.6% | #57 | 1,698 | 0 | 9 | 2007 | 39–23 | 62.9% | #20 | 1,796 | 0 | 4 |
| 28 | 2005 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #230 | 1,664 | 0 | 9 | 2008 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #140 | 1,737 | 0 | 4 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #73 | 1,731 | 0 | 4 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 28–24 | 53.8% | #38 | 1,835 | 0 | 6 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 24–24 | 50.0% | #29 | 1,737 | 0 | 6 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #176 | 1,634 | 0 | 6 |