H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Todd Woodbridge vs Diego Nargiso H2H: 1-0
Todd Woodbridge holds a 1–0 lead over Diego Nargiso in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Todd Woodbridge leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Todd Woodbridge won the 1992 New Haven second round 6-3 7-6(9).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
AUS
Age 55
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
ITA
Age 56
Left-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 19, 1992* | New Haven | ATP 250 | R64 | Hard | Todd Woodbridge | 6-3 7-6(9) | Diego Nargiso | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Todd Woodbridge | #1,151 | #19 | 1,575 | 1,857 | 237 | 229 | 50.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Diego Nargiso | #1,400 | #67 | 531 | 1,702 | 94 | 152 | 38.2% | 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 | Todd Woodbridge | Diego Nargiso | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 1988 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #213 | 1,453 | 0 | 0 | 1987 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #191 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1989 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #131 | 1,573 | 0 | 0 | 1988 | 10–12 | 45.5% | #90 | 1,621 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1990 | 16–17 | 48.5% | #50 | 1,704 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 11–19 | 36.7% | #150 | 1,590 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1991 | 23–25 | 47.9% | #77 | 1,702 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #147 | 1,618 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1992 | 25–22 | 53.2% | #54 | 1,684 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #109 | 1,603 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1993 | 19–20 | 48.7% | #109 | 1,664 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #88 | 1,596 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1994 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #90 | 1,661 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 8–23 | 25.8% | #120 | 1,525 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1995 | 32–22 | 59.3% | #33 | 1,810 | 0 | 1 | 1994 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #118 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1996 | 32–23 | 58.2% | #36 | 1,744 | 0 | 1 | 1995 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #183 | 1,528 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1997 | 31–20 | 60.8% | #26 | 1,796 | 0 | 2 | 1996 | 2–8 | 20.0% | #280 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1998 | 21–21 | 50.0% | #65 | 1,714 | 0 | 2 | 1997 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #152 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 1999 | 8–16 | 33.3% | #197 | 1,601 | 0 | 2 | 1998 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #128 | 1,563 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #187 | 1,588 | 0 | 2 | 1999 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #220 | 1,524 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2001 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #207 | 1,596 | 0 | 2 | 2000 | 8–4 | 66.7% | #134 | 1,612 | 0 | 0 |