H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Thomas Hogstedt vs Ricardo Cano H2H: 1-0
Thomas Hogstedt holds a 1–0 lead over Ricardo Cano in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Thomas Hogstedt leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Thomas Hogstedt won the 1983 Roland Garros first round 1-6 6-1 4-6 6-2 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
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
ARG
Age 75
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 25, 1983* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R128 | Clay | Thomas Hogstedt | 1-6 6-1 4-6 6-2 6-1 | Ricardo Cano | 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 |
| Ricardo Cano | #768 | #41 | 0 | 1,792 | 142 | 147 | 49.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Ricardo Cano | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1970 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,493 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1984 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #84 | 1,639 | 0 | 1 | 1971 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1985 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #210 | 1,520 | 0 | 1 | 1972 | 2–5 | 28.6% | — | 1,476 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1986 | 2–8 | 20.0% | #124 | 1,504 | 0 | 1 | 1973 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1987 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #179 | 1,508 | 0 | 1 | 1974 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #274 | 1,502 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1988 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #159 | 1,521 | 0 | 1 | 1975 | 18–13 | 58.1% | #42 | 1,737 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1989 | 8–10 | 44.4% | #133 | 1,613 | 0 | 1 | 1976 | 43–26 | 62.3% | #51 | 1,733 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1990 | 12–26 | 31.6% | #91 | 1,509 | 0 | 1 | 1977 | 18–24 | 42.9% | #121 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1991 | 11–23 | 32.4% | #130 | 1,518 | 0 | 1 | 1978 | 10–13 | 43.5% | #81 | 1,629 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 1992 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #181 | 1,547 | 0 | 1 | 1979 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #169 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 1993 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #306 | 1,530 | 0 | 1 | 1980 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #73 | 1,555 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 1994 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #309 | 1,546 | 0 | 1 | 1981 | 33–24 | 57.9% | #62 | 1,718 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1982 | 3–11 | 21.4% | #91 | 1,608 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1983 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #219 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 |