H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 07:16 UTC
David Ferrer vs Mario Ancic H2H: 2-1
David Ferrer holds a 2–1 lead over Mario Ancic in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on grass, while David Ferrer leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Mario Ancic won the 2008 Wimbledon third round 6-4 6-4 6-7(5) 7-6(3).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
ESP
Age 44
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
CRO
Age 42
Right-Handed
196 cm / 6'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 29, 2008* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R32 | Grass | Mario Ancic | 6-4 6-4 6-7(5) 7-6(3) | David Ferrer | Match data |
| Jun 21, 2008* | S Hertogenbosch | ATP 250 | QF | Grass | David Ferrer | 6-4 7-6(4) | Mario Ancic | Match data |
| Jan 22, 2006* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R32 | Hard | David Ferrer | 6-3 6-3 6-3 | Mario Ancic | 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 |
| Mario Ancic | #475 | #7 | 2,075 | 2,019 | 193 | 124 | 60.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
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 | Mario Ancic | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2002 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #89 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2003 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #74 | 1,621 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2002 | 10–6 | 62.5% | #59 | 1,610 | 0 | 1 | 2004 | 26–21 | 55.3% | #29 | 1,732 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2003 | 20–27 | 42.6% | #71 | 1,672 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 42–23 | 64.6% | #21 | 1,798 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2004 | 29–31 | 48.3% | #49 | 1,651 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 52–18 | 74.3% | #9 | 1,954 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 2005 | 41–28 | 59.4% | #14 | 1,776 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 13–10 | 56.5% | #83 | 1,880 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 2006 | 37–24 | 60.7% | #14 | 1,815 | 0 | 2 | 2008 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #36 | 1,903 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2007 | 57–22 | 72.2% | #5 | 2,036 | 0 | 5 | 2009 | 12–7 | 63.2% | #95 | 1,905 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 2008 | 40–20 | 66.7% | #12 | 1,856 | 0 | 7 | 2010 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #478 | 1,866 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 2009 | 40–24 | 62.5% | #17 | 1,853 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2010 | 58–23 | 71.6% | #7 | 2,033 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2011 | 55–19 | 74.3% | #5 | 2,108 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2012 | 68–14 | 82.9% | #5 | 2,241 | 0 | 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2013 | 63–24 | 72.4% | #3 | 2,100 | 0 | 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2014 | 55–24 | 69.6% | #10 | 2,065 | 0 | 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2015 | 53–16 | 76.8% | #7 | 2,126 | 0 | 26 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2016 | 33–22 | 60.0% | #21 | 1,966 | 0 | 26 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2017 | 25–21 | 54.3% | #37 | 1,914 | 0 | 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2018 | 8–17 | 32.0% | #125 | 1,710 | 0 | 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 2019 | 8–6 | 57.1% | #224 | 1,804 | 0 | 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |