H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Thomas Enqvist vs Leonardo Lavalle H2H: 1-0
Thomas Enqvist holds a 1–0 lead over Leonardo Lavalle in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Thomas Enqvist leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Thomas Enqvist won the 1994 Schenectady third round 7-5 7-6(5).
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
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
MEX
Age 59
Left-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 25, 1994* | Schenectady | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Thomas Enqvist | 7-5 7-6(5) | Leonardo Lavalle | 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 |
| Leonardo Lavalle | #968 | #51 | 483 | 1,728 | 60 | 96 | 38.5% | 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 | Thomas Enqvist | Leonardo Lavalle | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1985 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #87 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1992 | 16–9 | 64.0% | #63 | 1,734 | 0 | 1 | 1986 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #105 | 1,588 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1993 | 18–23 | 43.9% | #88 | 1,712 | 0 | 2 | 1987 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #224 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1994 | 23–19 | 54.8% | #59 | 1,761 | 0 | 2 | 1988 | 9–7 | 56.2% | #64 | 1,659 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1995 | 63–22 | 74.1% | #7 | 1,982 | 0 | 7 | 1989 | 11–15 | 42.3% | #132 | 1,645 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1996 | 49–25 | 66.2% | #9 | 1,980 | 0 | 10 | 1990 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #183 | 1,593 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1997 | 35–21 | 62.5% | #28 | 1,873 | 0 | 11 | 1991 | 5–3 | 62.5% | #133 | 1,656 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 1998 | 35–15 | 70.0% | #22 | 1,869 | 0 | 13 | 1992 | 7–15 | 31.8% | #99 | 1,600 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 1999 | 45–25 | 64.3% | #4 | 1,913 | 0 | 16 | 1993 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #309 | 1,569 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2000 | 51–23 | 68.9% | #9 | 1,906 | 0 | 18 | 1994 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #213 | 1,543 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2001 | 31–21 | 59.6% | #24 | 1,848 | 0 | 18 | 1995 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #362 | 1,543 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2002 | 23–17 | 57.5% | #44 | 1,792 | 0 | 19 | 1996 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #313 | 1,550 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2003 | 13–23 | 36.1% | #96 | 1,710 | 0 | 19 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #439 | 1,542 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2004 | 12–19 | 38.7% | #72 | 1,627 | 0 | 19 | 1998 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #400 | 1,552 | 0 | 1 |
| 31 | 2005 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #133 | 1,589 | 0 | 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |