H2H data updated: 2026-07-20 02:15 UTC
Thomas Hogstedt vs Ilie Nastase H2H: 0-1
Ilie Nastase holds a 1–0 lead over Thomas Hogstedt in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Ilie Nastase leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Ilie Nastase won the 1983 Roland Garros second round 7-6 6-1 1-6 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 62
Right-Handed
190 cm / 6'3"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
ROU
Age 80
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 27, 1983* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R64 | Clay | Ilie Nastase | 7-6 6-1 1-6 6-1 | Thomas Hogstedt | 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 Hogstedt | #1,032 | #38 | 413 | 1,736 | 90 | 153 | 37.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Ilie Nastase | #1,075 | #1 | 0 | 2,260 | 859 | 331 | 72.2% | 2 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 55 | 64 |
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 Hogstedt | Ilie Nastase | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1979 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #368 | 1,521 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1981 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #549 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1982 | 9–10 | 47.4% | #82 | 1,588 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1983 | 15–16 | 48.4% | #63 | 1,690 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1984 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #84 | 1,639 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 1985 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #210 | 1,520 | 0 | 1 | 1968 | 41–14 | 74.5% | — | 1,756 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 1986 | 2–8 | 20.0% | #124 | 1,504 | 0 | 1 | 1969 | 27–22 | 55.1% | — | 1,824 | 0 | 5 |
| 23 | 1987 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #179 | 1,508 | 0 | 1 | 1970 | 60–20 | 75.0% | — | 1,970 | 0 | 7 |
| 24 | 1988 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #159 | 1,521 | 0 | 1 | 1971 | 73–13 | 84.9% | — | 2,079 | 0 | 14 |
| 25 | 1989 | 8–10 | 44.4% | #133 | 1,613 | 0 | 1 | 1972 | 106–20 | 84.1% | — | 2,157 | 1 | 25 |
| 26 | 1990 | 12–26 | 31.6% | #91 | 1,509 | 0 | 1 | 1973 | 118–17 | 87.4% | #1 | 2,208 | 2 | 41 |
| 27 | 1991 | 11–23 | 32.4% | #130 | 1,518 | 0 | 1 | 1974 | 80–21 | 79.2% | #10 | 2,153 | 2 | 48 |
| 28 | 1992 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #181 | 1,547 | 0 | 1 | 1975 | 91–21 | 81.2% | #7 | 2,170 | 2 | 54 |
| 29 | 1993 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #306 | 1,530 | 0 | 1 | 1976 | 76–17 | 81.7% | #3 | 2,179 | 2 | 59 |
| 30 | 1994 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #309 | 1,546 | 0 | 1 | 1977 | 44–18 | 71.0% | #9 | 2,092 | 2 | 62 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1978 | 45–21 | 68.2% | #16 | 2,059 | 2 | 64 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1979 | 28–25 | 52.8% | #49 | 1,795 | 2 | 64 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1980 | 19–24 | 44.2% | #77 | 1,740 | 2 | 64 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1981 | 26–27 | 49.1% | #74 | 1,730 | 2 | 64 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1982 | 14–24 | 36.8% | #86 | 1,633 | 2 | 64 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1983 | 6–11 | 35.3% | #118 | 1,595 | 2 | 64 |
| 37 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1984 | 4–12 | 25.0% | #202 | 1,574 | 2 | 64 |
| 38 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1985 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #431 | 1,535 | 2 | 64 |