H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 19:16 UTC
Botic van de Zandschulp vs Daniel Evans H2H: 0-1
Daniel Evans holds a 1–0 lead over Botic van de Zandschulp in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Daniel Evans leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Daniel Evans won the 2023 US Open second round 1-6 6-1 6-3 6-3.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
Netherlands
Age 30
Right-Handed
191 cm / 6'3"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
Great Britain
Age 36
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 31, 2023* | US Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Daniel Evans | 1-6 6-1 6-3 6-3 | Botic van de Zandschulp | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Botic van de Zandschulp | #55 | #22 | 1,573 | 1,932 | 114 | 118 | 49.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Daniel Evans | #385 | #21 | 2,195 | 1,927 | 140 | 160 | 46.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
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 | Botic van de Zandschulp | Daniel Evans | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #477 | 1,465 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #261 | 1,441 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #363 | 1,505 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #342 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #297 | 1,533 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 4–2 | 66.7% | #150 | 1,689 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #305 | 1,677 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2021 | 15–10 | 60.0% | #57 | 1,856 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 26 | 2022 | 34–28 | 54.8% | #35 | 1,835 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 9–8 | 52.9% | #66 | 1,790 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2023 | 20–24 | 45.5% | #50 | 1,793 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 11–10 | 52.4% | #133 | 1,820 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2024 | 14–22 | 38.9% | #80 | 1,779 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #192 | 1,787 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2025 | 16–20 | 44.4% | #77 | 1,714 | 0 | 0 | 2019 | 18–18 | 50.0% | #42 | 1,817 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2026 | 15–14 | 51.7% | #55 | 1,713 | 0 | 0 | 2020 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #32 | 1,858 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2021 | 23–22 | 51.1% | #25 | 1,836 | 0 | 1 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 27–26 | 50.9% | #27 | 1,850 | 0 | 1 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #38 | 1,761 | 0 | 2 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2024 | 6–19 | 24.0% | #164 | 1,704 | 0 | 2 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2025 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #185 | 1,724 | 0 | 2 |