H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 14:16 UTC
Ivan Dodig vs Daniel Brands H2H: 0-1
Daniel Brands holds a 1–0 lead over Ivan Dodig in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Daniel Brands leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Daniel Brands won the 2012 Bucharest third round 7-6(4) 6-2.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
CRO
Age 41
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
GER
Age 39
Right-Handed
196 cm / 6'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 21, 2012 | Valencia | ATP 250 | Q2 | Hard | Ivan Dodig | 6-1 6-4 | Daniel Brands | Match data |
| Apr 26, 2012* | Bucharest | ATP 250 | R32 | Clay | Daniel Brands | 7-6(4) 6-2 | Ivan Dodig | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ivan Dodig | #423 | #29 | 1,330 | 1,964 | 114 | 129 | 46.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Daniel Brands | #1,055 | #51 | 896 | 1,886 | 57 | 92 | 38.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Ivan Dodig | Daniel Brands | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #220 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #150 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 7–5 | 58.3% | #92 | 1,645 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 9–19 | 32.1% | #104 | 1,670 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2008 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #422 | 1,508 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #110 | 1,690 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2009 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #180 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #153 | 1,689 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2010 | 7–7 | 50.0% | #88 | 1,723 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 22–22 | 50.0% | #54 | 1,815 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2011 | 26–23 | 53.1% | #36 | 1,774 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 2–11 | 15.4% | #329 | 1,713 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2012 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #72 | 1,784 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #159 | 1,729 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2013 | 31–23 | 57.4% | #33 | 1,916 | 0 | 1 | 2016 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #168 | 1,660 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2014 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #95 | 1,757 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #320 | 1,662 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2015 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #87 | 1,666 | 0 | 1 | 2018 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #182 | 1,615 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2016 | 7–16 | 30.4% | #147 | 1,571 | 0 | 1 | 2019 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #465 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | 2017 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #336 | 1,602 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |