H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Glenn Layendecker vs Mel Purcell H2H: 0-1
Mel Purcell holds a 1–0 lead over Glenn Layendecker in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Mel Purcell leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Mel Purcell won the 1986 Indianapolis third round 6-2 4-6 6-1.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
USA
Age 65
Left-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 67
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 28, 1986 | Indianapolis | ATP 250 | R32 | Clay | Mel Purcell | 6-2 4-6 6-1 | Glenn Layendecker | Match data |
Career Comparison
| Player | Current | Peak | Pts | Elo | W | L | Win % | GS | 1000 | Finals | 500 | 250 | Titles |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glenn Layendecker | #804 | #48 | 447 | 1,733 | 77 | 104 | 42.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mel Purcell | #673 | #21 | 21 | 1,991 | 190 | 164 | 53.7% | 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 | Glenn Layendecker | Mel Purcell | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1978 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #555 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1979 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #245 | 1,508 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1980 | 19–13 | 59.4% | #27 | 1,742 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1981 | 48–20 | 70.6% | #24 | 1,914 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1982 | 38–24 | 61.3% | #28 | 1,837 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 1984 | 3–12 | 20.0% | #174 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 | 1983 | 30–25 | 54.5% | #28 | 1,770 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 1985 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #118 | 1,525 | 0 | 0 | 1984 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #67 | 1,702 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 1986 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #73 | 1,663 | 0 | 0 | 1985 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #129 | 1,705 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 1987 | 1–12 | 7.7% | #353 | 1,517 | 0 | 0 | 1986 | 12–16 | 42.9% | #72 | 1,649 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 1988 | 9–8 | 52.9% | #78 | 1,610 | 0 | 0 | 1987 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #140 | 1,529 | 0 | 3 |
| 28 | 1989 | 17–18 | 48.6% | #87 | 1,651 | 0 | 0 | 1988 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #268 | 1,537 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 1990 | 12–14 | 46.2% | #134 | 1,629 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #504 | 1,525 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 1991 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #135 | 1,610 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 1992 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #353 | 1,598 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |