H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 14:16 UTC
Sjeng Schalken vs Tomas Carbonell H2H: 2-0
Sjeng Schalken holds a 2–0 lead over Tomas Carbonell in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Sjeng Schalken leads 2–0 on clay. Most recently, Sjeng Schalken won the 1996 Barcelona second round 3-6 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.
NED
Age 49
Right-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
ESP
Age 57
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 17, 1996* | Barcelona | ATP 250 | R64 | Clay | Sjeng Schalken | 3-6 6-1 6-4 | Tomas Carbonell | Match data |
| Mar 25, 1995* | Casablanca | ATP 250 | QF | Clay | Sjeng Schalken | 6-4 6-3 | Tomas Carbonell | 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 |
| Tomas Carbonell | #860 | #40 | 900 | 1,776 | 193 | 222 | 46.5% | 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 | Sjeng Schalken | Tomas Carbonell | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1986 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #404 | 1,480 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1995 | 17–14 | 54.8% | #69 | 1,645 | 0 | 1 | 1987 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #242 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1996 | 26–26 | 50.0% | #65 | 1,687 | 0 | 2 | 1988 | 7–7 | 50.0% | #209 | 1,573 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1997 | 16–25 | 39.0% | #59 | 1,632 | 0 | 3 | 1989 | 15–15 | 50.0% | #77 | 1,623 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1998 | 22–30 | 42.3% | #66 | 1,592 | 0 | 3 | 1990 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #76 | 1,708 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1999 | 28–26 | 51.9% | #44 | 1,744 | 0 | 4 | 1991 | 14–26 | 35.0% | #96 | 1,623 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2000 | 35–26 | 57.4% | #22 | 1,824 | 0 | 5 | 1992 | 21–19 | 52.5% | #65 | 1,658 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2001 | 36–27 | 57.1% | #26 | 1,846 | 0 | 6 | 1993 | 18–28 | 39.1% | #89 | 1,580 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2002 | 36–27 | 57.1% | #20 | 1,839 | 0 | 7 | 1994 | 28–27 | 50.9% | #62 | 1,639 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2003 | 39–23 | 62.9% | #18 | 1,826 | 0 | 9 | 1995 | 26–26 | 50.0% | #74 | 1,677 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2004 | 17–18 | 48.6% | #57 | 1,698 | 0 | 9 | 1996 | 21–25 | 45.7% | #75 | 1,585 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2005 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #230 | 1,664 | 0 | 9 | 1997 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #170 | 1,576 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1998 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #167 | 1,619 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1999 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #826 | 1,581 | 0 | 2 |