H2H data updated: 2026-07-20 14:15 UTC
Botic van de Zandschulp vs Joao Sousa H2H: 1-0
Botic van de Zandschulp holds a 1–0 lead over Joao Sousa in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Botic van de Zandschulp leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Botic van de Zandschulp won the 2022 Tel Aviv third round 6-2 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
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
POR
Age 37
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 29, 2022* | Tel Aviv | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Botic van de Zandschulp | 6-2 6-3 | Joao Sousa | 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 |
| Joao Sousa | #954 | #28 | 1,355 | 1,917 | 189 | 247 | 43.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
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 | Joao Sousa | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #592 | 1,550 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #192 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #101 | 1,587 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 14–13 | 51.9% | #49 | 1,796 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2021 | 15–10 | 60.0% | #57 | 1,856 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 23–33 | 41.1% | #54 | 1,741 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2022 | 34–28 | 54.8% | #35 | 1,835 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 34–30 | 53.1% | #33 | 1,904 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2023 | 20–24 | 45.5% | #50 | 1,793 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 24–32 | 42.9% | #43 | 1,802 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2024 | 14–22 | 38.9% | #80 | 1,779 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 22–30 | 42.3% | #57 | 1,734 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2025 | 16–20 | 44.4% | #77 | 1,714 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 25–26 | 49.0% | #44 | 1,783 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2026 | 15–14 | 51.7% | #55 | 1,713 | 0 | 0 | 2019 | 25–28 | 47.2% | #60 | 1,756 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2020 | 0–9 | 0.0% | #90 | 1,606 | 0 | 3 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2021 | 1–12 | 7.7% | #140 | 1,545 | 0 | 3 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 13–20 | 39.4% | #82 | 1,565 | 0 | 4 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #249 | 1,509 | 0 | 4 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2024 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #726 | 1,503 | 0 | 4 |