H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 14:16 UTC

David Ferrer vs Lleyton Hewitt H2H: 3-1

David Ferrer holds a 3–1 lead over Lleyton Hewitt in their ATP head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, David Ferrer leads 2–0 on hard courts and 1–0 on clay. Most recently, David Ferrer won the 2016 Australian Open second round 6-2 6-4 6-4.

Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.

David Ferrer
ESP Age 44 Right-Handed 175 cm / 5'9"
H2H
3 – 1
4 main draw meetings
Lleyton Hewitt
AUS Age 45 Right-Handed 178 cm / 5'10"

H2H Match Log

DateTournamentCategoryRoundSurfaceWinnerScoreLoserMatch
Jan 21, 2016* Australian Open Grand Slam R64 Hard David Ferrer #8 6-2 6-4 6-4 Lleyton Hewitt #308 Match data
Sep 2, 2012* US Open Grand Slam R32 Hard David Ferrer #5 7-6(9) 4-6 6-3 6-0 Lleyton Hewitt #125 Match data
May 31, 2008* Roland Garros Grand Slam R32 Clay David Ferrer #5 6-2 3-6 3-6 6-3 6-4 Lleyton Hewitt #28 Match data
Jul 5, 2006* Wimbledon Grand Slam R16 Grass Lleyton Hewitt #9 6-4 6-4 4-6 7-5 David Ferrer #19 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
David Ferrer #224 #3 7,220 2,270 700 368 65.5% 0 1 0 7 19 27
Lleyton Hewitt #636 #1 5,205 2,159 564 241 70.1% 2 2 2 1 23 30

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 David Ferrer Lleyton Hewitt
YrW-LWin %RankEloGSTitles YrW-LWin %RankEloGSTitles
16 — — — — — — — 1997 0–1 0.0% #550 1,492 0 0
17 — — — — — — — 1998 10–9 52.6% #100 1,614 0 1
18 — — — — — — — 1999 40–18 69.0% #25 1,853 0 2
19 — — — — — — — 2000 53–15 77.9% #7 1,993 0 6
20 2002 10–6 62.5% #59 1,610 0 1 2001 71–15 82.6% #1 2,116 1 12
21 2003 20–27 42.6% #71 1,672 0 1 2002 61–16 79.2% #1 2,062 2 17
22 2004 29–31 48.3% #49 1,651 0 1 2003 29–10 74.4% #17 1,939 2 19
23 2005 41–28 59.4% #14 1,776 0 1 2004 64–16 80.0% #3 2,076 2 23
24 2006 37–24 60.7% #14 1,815 0 2 2005 36–9 80.0% #4 2,092 2 24
25 2007 57–22 72.2% #5 2,036 0 5 2006 32–14 69.6% #20 1,964 2 25
26 2008 40–20 66.7% #12 1,856 0 7 2007 34–15 69.4% #21 1,925 2 26
27 2009 40–24 62.5% #17 1,853 0 7 2008 17–10 63.0% #67 1,936 2 26
28 2010 58–23 71.6% #7 2,033 0 9 2009 33–19 63.5% #22 1,956 2 27
29 2011 55–19 74.3% #5 2,108 0 11 2010 18–11 62.1% #54 1,907 2 28
30 2012 68–14 82.9% #5 2,241 0 18 2011 8–9 47.1% #186 1,817 2 28
31 2013 63–24 72.4% #3 2,100 0 20 2012 13–11 54.2% #83 1,867 2 28
32 2014 55–24 69.6% #10 2,065 0 21 2013 22–18 55.0% #60 1,884 2 28
33 2015 53–16 76.8% #7 2,126 0 26 2014 19–15 55.9% #50 1,841 2 30
34 2016 33–22 60.0% #21 1,966 0 26 2015 3–9 25.0% #307 1,715 2 30
35 2017 25–21 54.3% #37 1,914 0 27 2016 1–1 50.0% #633 1,727 2 30
36 2018 8–17 32.0% #125 1,710 0 27 — — — — — — —
37 2019 8–6 57.1% #224 1,804 0 27 — — — — — — —