H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 14:16 UTC
Tomas Carbonell vs Richard Krajicek H2H: 0-1
Richard Krajicek holds a 1–0 lead over Tomas Carbonell in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Richard Krajicek leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Richard Krajicek won the 1996 Roland Garros second round 6-2 4-6 7-6(2) 6-2.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
ESP
Age 57
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
NED
Age 54
Right-Handed
196 cm / 6'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 31, 1996* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R64 | Clay | Richard Krajicek | 6-2 4-6 7-6(2) 6-2 | Tomas Carbonell | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tomas Carbonell | #860 | #40 | 900 | 1,776 | 193 | 222 | 46.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Richard Krajicek | #1,044 | #4 | 3,130 | 2,044 | 408 | 207 | 66.3% | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 17 |
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 | Tomas Carbonell | Richard Krajicek | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 1986 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #404 | 1,480 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1987 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #242 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1988 | 7–7 | 50.0% | #209 | 1,573 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 26–20 | 56.5% | #45 | 1,745 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 1989 | 15–15 | 50.0% | #77 | 1,623 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 47–24 | 66.2% | #10 | 1,950 | 0 | 3 |
| 21 | 1990 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #76 | 1,708 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #15 | 1,888 | 0 | 4 |
| 22 | 1991 | 14–26 | 35.0% | #96 | 1,623 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 32–13 | 71.1% | #17 | 1,883 | 0 | 7 |
| 23 | 1992 | 21–19 | 52.5% | #65 | 1,658 | 0 | 1 | 1995 | 40–20 | 66.7% | #11 | 1,832 | 0 | 9 |
| 24 | 1993 | 18–28 | 39.1% | #89 | 1,580 | 0 | 1 | 1996 | 46–24 | 65.7% | #7 | 1,876 | 1 | 10 |
| 25 | 1994 | 28–27 | 50.9% | #62 | 1,639 | 0 | 1 | 1997 | 50–19 | 72.5% | #11 | 1,969 | 1 | 13 |
| 26 | 1995 | 26–26 | 50.0% | #74 | 1,677 | 0 | 1 | 1998 | 45–16 | 73.8% | #10 | 1,975 | 1 | 15 |
| 27 | 1996 | 21–25 | 45.7% | #75 | 1,585 | 0 | 2 | 1999 | 42–20 | 67.7% | #10 | 1,879 | 1 | 17 |
| 28 | 1997 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #170 | 1,576 | 0 | 2 | 2000 | 26–15 | 63.4% | #36 | 1,885 | 1 | 17 |
| 29 | 1998 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #167 | 1,619 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 1999 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #826 | 1,581 | 0 | 2 | 2002 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #112 | 1,839 | 1 | 17 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2003 | 11–10 | 52.4% | #147 | 1,762 | 1 | 17 |