H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Thomas Enqvist vs Andrea Gaudenzi H2H: 2-2
Thomas Enqvist and Andrea Gaudenzi are tied 2–2 in their ATP head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Andrea Gaudenzi leads 2–0 on clay, while Thomas Enqvist leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Thomas Enqvist won the 2001 Moscow third round 6-7(1) 7-6(4) 6-1.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
SWE
Age 52
Right-Handed
190 cm / 6'3"
H2H
2
–
2
4 main draw meetings
ITA
Age 52
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 4, 2001* | Moscow | ATP 250 | R32 | Carpet | Thomas Enqvist | 6-7(1) 7-6(4) 6-1 | Andrea Gaudenzi | Match data |
| May 2, 1997* | Munich | ATP 250 | R16 | Clay | Andrea Gaudenzi | 3-6 6-3 6-2 | Thomas Enqvist | Match data |
| May 18, 1996* | Rome Masters | Masters 1000 | R16 | Clay | Andrea Gaudenzi | 6-2 7-6(7) | Thomas Enqvist | Match data |
| Jan 13, 1994* | Auckland | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Thomas Enqvist | 7-5 7-5 | Andrea Gaudenzi | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thomas Enqvist | #548 | #4 | 2,693 | 2,013 | 422 | 281 | 60.0% | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 19 |
| Andrea Gaudenzi | #1,441 | #18 | 1,522 | 1,865 | 204 | 220 | 48.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
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 | Thomas Enqvist | Andrea Gaudenzi | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1989 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1103 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1990 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #472 | 1,480 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #861 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1991 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #231 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #632 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1992 | 16–9 | 64.0% | #63 | 1,734 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1993 | 18–23 | 43.9% | #88 | 1,712 | 0 | 2 | 1993 | 17–10 | 63.0% | #60 | 1,670 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1994 | 23–19 | 54.8% | #59 | 1,761 | 0 | 2 | 1994 | 36–29 | 55.4% | #24 | 1,773 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1995 | 63–22 | 74.1% | #7 | 1,982 | 0 | 7 | 1995 | 31–25 | 55.4% | #22 | 1,680 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1996 | 49–25 | 66.2% | #9 | 1,980 | 0 | 10 | 1996 | 24–26 | 48.0% | #55 | 1,654 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1997 | 35–21 | 62.5% | #28 | 1,873 | 0 | 11 | 1997 | 14–20 | 41.2% | #57 | 1,640 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1998 | 35–15 | 70.0% | #22 | 1,869 | 0 | 13 | 1998 | 30–24 | 55.6% | #44 | 1,677 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 1999 | 45–25 | 64.3% | #4 | 1,913 | 0 | 16 | 1999 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #84 | 1,645 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2000 | 51–23 | 68.9% | #9 | 1,906 | 0 | 18 | 2000 | 8–16 | 33.3% | #101 | 1,592 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2001 | 31–21 | 59.6% | #24 | 1,848 | 0 | 18 | 2001 | 17–19 | 47.2% | #54 | 1,693 | 0 | 3 |
| 28 | 2002 | 23–17 | 57.5% | #44 | 1,792 | 0 | 19 | 2002 | 11–26 | 29.7% | #120 | 1,534 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2003 | 13–23 | 36.1% | #96 | 1,710 | 0 | 19 | 2003 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #293 | 1,533 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2004 | 12–19 | 38.7% | #72 | 1,627 | 0 | 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2005 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #133 | 1,589 | 0 | 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |