H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 07:16 UTC
Dusan Lajovic vs Daniel Evans H2H: 0-2
Daniel Evans holds a 2–0 lead over Dusan Lajovic in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Daniel Evans leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Daniel Evans won the 2021 Wimbledon second round 6-3 6-3 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.
Serbia
Age 36
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H
0
–
2
2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 1, 2021* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R64 | Grass | Daniel Evans | 6-3 6-3 6-4 | Dusan Lajovic | Match data |
| Apr 13, 2021* | Monte Carlo Masters | Masters 1000 | R64 | Clay | Daniel Evans | 6-3 6-7(11) 6-2 | Dusan Lajovic | Match data |
| May 12, 2019* | Rome Masters | Masters 1000 | Q2 | Clay | Daniel Evans | 7-5 6-3 | Dusan Lajovic | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dusan Lajovic | #152 | #23 | 1,895 | 1,900 | 192 | 257 | 42.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| 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 | Dusan Lajovic | 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% | #434 | 1,455 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #363 | 1,505 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2011 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #190 | 1,617 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #342 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2012 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #163 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #297 | 1,533 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2013 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #116 | 1,557 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 4–2 | 66.7% | #150 | 1,689 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2014 | 14–16 | 46.7% | #69 | 1,686 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #305 | 1,677 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2015 | 16–21 | 43.2% | #76 | 1,794 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 26 | 2016 | 18–22 | 45.0% | #93 | 1,751 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 9–8 | 52.9% | #66 | 1,790 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2017 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #75 | 1,717 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 11–10 | 52.4% | #133 | 1,820 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2018 | 23–23 | 50.0% | #48 | 1,822 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #192 | 1,787 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2019 | 20–26 | 43.5% | #34 | 1,704 | 0 | 1 | 2019 | 18–18 | 50.0% | #42 | 1,817 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2020 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #26 | 1,699 | 0 | 1 | 2020 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #32 | 1,858 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2021 | 17–25 | 40.5% | #33 | 1,712 | 0 | 1 | 2021 | 23–22 | 51.1% | #25 | 1,836 | 0 | 1 |
| 32 | 2022 | 10–20 | 33.3% | #80 | 1,656 | 0 | 1 | 2022 | 27–26 | 50.9% | #27 | 1,850 | 0 | 1 |
| 33 | 2023 | 23–22 | 51.1% | #52 | 1,728 | 0 | 2 | 2023 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #38 | 1,761 | 0 | 2 |
| 34 | 2024 | 17–16 | 51.5% | #81 | 1,713 | 0 | 2 | 2024 | 6–19 | 24.0% | #164 | 1,704 | 0 | 2 |
| 35 | 2025 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #121 | 1,607 | 0 | 2 | 2025 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #185 | 1,724 | 0 | 2 |
| 36 | 2026 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #152 | 1,591 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |