H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Thomas Enqvist vs Jakob Hlasek H2H: 0-2
Jakob Hlasek holds a 2–0 lead over Thomas Enqvist in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Jakob Hlasek leads 2–0 on carpet. Most recently, Jakob Hlasek won the 1995 Paris Masters third round 7-6(3) 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.
SWE
Age 52
Right-Handed
190 cm / 6'3"
H2H
0
–
2
2 main draw meetings
SUI
Age 61
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 2, 1995* | Paris Masters | Masters 1000 | R32 | Carpet | Jakob Hlasek | 7-6(3) 6-3 | Thomas Enqvist | Match data |
| Feb 17, 1994* | Philadelphia | ATP 250 | R32 | Carpet | Jakob Hlasek | 6-3 7-5 | Thomas Enqvist | 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 |
| Jakob Hlasek | #583 | #7 | 1,308 | 2,062 | 389 | 300 | 56.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
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 | Jakob Hlasek | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1991 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #231 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 | 1982 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,516 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1992 | 16–9 | 64.0% | #63 | 1,734 | 0 | 1 | 1983 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #227 | 1,567 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1993 | 18–23 | 43.9% | #88 | 1,712 | 0 | 2 | 1984 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #91 | 1,647 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1994 | 23–19 | 54.8% | #59 | 1,761 | 0 | 2 | 1985 | 29–23 | 55.8% | #33 | 1,784 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1995 | 63–22 | 74.1% | #7 | 1,982 | 0 | 7 | 1986 | 35–25 | 58.3% | #32 | 1,732 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1996 | 49–25 | 66.2% | #9 | 1,980 | 0 | 10 | 1987 | 32–21 | 60.4% | #23 | 1,856 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1997 | 35–21 | 62.5% | #28 | 1,873 | 0 | 11 | 1988 | 44–14 | 75.9% | #8 | 2,050 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 1998 | 35–15 | 70.0% | #22 | 1,869 | 0 | 13 | 1989 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #30 | 1,795 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 1999 | 45–25 | 64.3% | #4 | 1,913 | 0 | 16 | 1990 | 41–22 | 65.1% | #17 | 1,937 | 0 | 4 |
| 26 | 2000 | 51–23 | 68.9% | #9 | 1,906 | 0 | 18 | 1991 | 45–25 | 64.3% | #20 | 1,869 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | 2001 | 31–21 | 59.6% | #24 | 1,848 | 0 | 18 | 1992 | 24–22 | 52.2% | #36 | 1,806 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2002 | 23–17 | 57.5% | #44 | 1,792 | 0 | 19 | 1993 | 20–25 | 44.4% | #71 | 1,713 | 0 | 5 |
| 29 | 2003 | 13–23 | 36.1% | #96 | 1,710 | 0 | 19 | 1994 | 22–24 | 47.8% | #70 | 1,676 | 0 | 5 |
| 30 | 2004 | 12–19 | 38.7% | #72 | 1,627 | 0 | 19 | 1995 | 32–27 | 54.2% | #35 | 1,783 | 0 | 5 |
| 31 | 2005 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #133 | 1,589 | 0 | 19 | 1996 | 20–27 | 42.6% | #74 | 1,751 | 0 | 5 |