H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 01:16 UTC

David Nalbandian vs Lleyton Hewitt H2H: 2-3

Lleyton Hewitt holds a 3–2 lead over David Nalbandian in their ATP head-to-head. Across 5 main-draw meetings, David Nalbandian leads 2–1 on hard courts, while Lleyton Hewitt leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, David Nalbandian won the 2011 Australian Open first round 3-6 6-4 3-6 7-6(1) 9-7.

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

David Nalbandian
ARG Age 44 Right-Handed 180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
2 – 3
5 main draw meetings
Lleyton Hewitt
AUS Age 45 Right-Handed 178 cm / 5'10"

H2H Match Log

DateTournamentCategoryRoundSurfaceWinnerScoreLoserMatch
Jan 19, 2011* Australian Open Grand Slam R128 Hard David Nalbandian #21 3-6 6-4 3-6 7-6(1) 9-7 Lleyton Hewitt #54 Match data
Jan 17, 2009* Sydney ATP 250 QF Hard David Nalbandian #11 7-6(3) 7-5 Lleyton Hewitt #74 Match data
Jan 28, 2005* Australian Open Grand Slam QF Hard Lleyton Hewitt #3 6-3 6-2 1-6 3-6 10-8 David Nalbandian #9 Match data
Jul 8, 2002* Wimbledon Grand Slam F Grass Lleyton Hewitt #1 6-1 6-3 6-2 David Nalbandian #15 Match data
Apr 26, 2002* Barcelona ATP 250 R16 Clay Lleyton Hewitt #1 6-2 6-4 David Nalbandian #31 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 Nalbandian #231 #3 3,500 2,070 356 185 65.8% 0 2 1 1 7 11
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 Nalbandian 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 2000 0–2 0.0% #245 1,482 0 0 1999 40–18 69.0% #25 1,853 0 2
19 2001 17–9 65.4% #47 1,738 0 0 2000 53–15 77.9% #7 1,993 0 6
20 2002 36–23 61.0% #12 1,856 0 2 2001 71–15 82.6% #1 2,116 1 12
21 2003 38–20 65.5% #8 1,988 0 2 2002 61–16 79.2% #1 2,062 2 17
22 2004 33–14 70.2% #9 1,905 0 2 2003 29–10 74.4% #17 1,939 2 19
23 2005 40–19 67.8% #6 1,982 0 4 2004 64–16 80.0% #3 2,076 2 23
24 2006 39–16 70.9% #8 1,940 0 5 2005 36–9 80.0% #4 2,092 2 24
25 2007 31–17 64.6% #9 2,032 0 7 2006 32–14 69.6% #20 1,964 2 25
26 2008 37–14 72.5% #11 2,014 0 9 2007 34–15 69.4% #21 1,925 2 26
27 2009 14–8 63.6% #64 1,935 0 10 2008 17–10 63.0% #67 1,936 2 26
28 2010 25–10 71.4% #27 2,005 0 11 2009 33–19 63.5% #22 1,956 2 27
29 2011 20–13 60.6% #64 1,940 0 11 2010 18–11 62.1% #54 1,907 2 28
30 2012 20–15 57.1% #82 1,883 0 11 2011 8–9 47.1% #186 1,817 2 28
31 2013 6–5 54.5% #229 1,871 0 11 2012 13–11 54.2% #83 1,867 2 28
32 — — — — — — — 2013 22–18 55.0% #60 1,884 2 28
33 — — — — — — — 2014 19–15 55.9% #50 1,841 2 30
34 — — — — — — — 2015 3–9 25.0% #307 1,715 2 30
35 — — — — — — — 2016 1–1 50.0% #633 1,727 2 30