H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Vijay Amritraj vs Tom Cain H2H: 1-0
Vijay Amritraj holds a 1–0 lead over Tom Cain in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Vijay Amritraj leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Vijay Amritraj won the 1983 Hong Kong third round 3-6 6-4 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.
IND
Age 72
Right-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 67
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 3, 1983* | Hong Kong | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Vijay Amritraj | 3-6 6-4 6-2 | Tom Cain | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vijay Amritraj | #1,178 | #18 | 69 | 2,005 | 390 | 294 | 57.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 16 |
| Tom Cain | #693 | #70 | 0 | 1,636 | 43 | 67 | 39.1% | 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 | Vijay Amritraj | Tom Cain | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 1970 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,508 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1971 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,496 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1972 | 9–13 | 40.9% | — | 1,506 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1973 | 33–15 | 68.8% | #30 | 1,794 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1974 | 48–28 | 63.2% | #39 | 1,810 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 1975 | 42–24 | 63.6% | #29 | 1,945 | 0 | 6 | 1980 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #219 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1976 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #31 | 1,831 | 0 | 8 | 1981 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #219 | 1,476 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1977 | 25–22 | 53.2% | #46 | 1,795 | 0 | 10 | 1982 | 13–14 | 48.1% | — | 1,551 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1978 | 16–14 | 53.3% | #58 | 1,763 | 0 | 11 | 1983 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #95 | 1,608 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1979 | 34–23 | 59.6% | #34 | 1,822 | 0 | 12 | 1984 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #182 | 1,600 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1980 | 49–24 | 67.1% | #19 | 1,982 | 0 | 14 | 1985 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #213 | 1,550 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1981 | 31–21 | 59.6% | #20 | 1,904 | 0 | 14 | 1986 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #597 | 1,535 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 1982 | 12–12 | 50.0% | #88 | 1,843 | 0 | 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 1983 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #382 | 1,685 | 0 | 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 1984 | 19–18 | 51.4% | #42 | 1,704 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 1985 | 11–16 | 40.7% | #80 | 1,698 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 1986 | 8–7 | 53.3% | #106 | 1,685 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 1987 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #221 | 1,676 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 1988 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #193 | 1,660 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 1989 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #280 | 1,606 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 1990 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #687 | 1,542 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 39 | 1993 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1178 | 1,528 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |