H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 19:16 UTC
Ivan Ljubicic vs Sjeng Schalken H2H: 3-1
Ivan Ljubicic holds a 3–1 lead over Sjeng Schalken in their ATP head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Ivan Ljubicic leads 3–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Ivan Ljubicic won the 2005 Rotterdam fourth round 6-4 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.
CRO
Age 47
Right-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
H2H
3
–
1
4 main draw meetings
NED
Age 49
Right-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 18, 2005* | Rotterdam | ATP 250 | R16 | Hard | Ivan Ljubicic | 6-4 5-7 6-3 | Sjeng Schalken | Match data |
| Feb 12, 2005* | Marseille | ATP 250 | QF | Hard | Ivan Ljubicic | 6-3 6-4 | Sjeng Schalken | Match data |
| Oct 17, 2002* | Madrid Masters | Masters 1000 | R32 | Hard | Ivan Ljubicic | 7-6(9) 6-4 | Sjeng Schalken | Match data |
| Aug 30, 2002* | US Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Sjeng Schalken | 6-3 6-3 6-4 | Ivan Ljubicic | 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 Ljubicic | #53 | #3 | 3,315 | 2,052 | 400 | 282 | 58.7% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 10 |
| Sjeng Schalken | #677 | #11 | 1,790 | 1,934 | 280 | 254 | 52.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 9 |
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 Ljubicic | Sjeng Schalken | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 1996 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #576 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #148 | 1,501 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1997 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #289 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 17–14 | 54.8% | #69 | 1,645 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 1998 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #293 | 1,482 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 26–26 | 50.0% | #65 | 1,687 | 0 | 2 |
| 20 | 1999 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #77 | 1,587 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 16–25 | 39.0% | #59 | 1,632 | 0 | 3 |
| 21 | 2000 | 19–21 | 47.5% | #91 | 1,654 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 22–30 | 42.3% | #66 | 1,592 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2001 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #37 | 1,824 | 0 | 1 | 1999 | 28–26 | 51.9% | #44 | 1,744 | 0 | 4 |
| 23 | 2002 | 27–27 | 50.0% | #49 | 1,741 | 0 | 1 | 2000 | 35–26 | 57.4% | #22 | 1,824 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 2003 | 27–23 | 54.0% | #42 | 1,791 | 0 | 1 | 2001 | 36–27 | 57.1% | #26 | 1,846 | 0 | 6 |
| 25 | 2004 | 33–22 | 60.0% | #22 | 1,809 | 0 | 1 | 2002 | 36–27 | 57.1% | #20 | 1,839 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 2005 | 50–23 | 68.5% | #9 | 1,951 | 0 | 3 | 2003 | 39–23 | 62.9% | #18 | 1,826 | 0 | 9 |
| 27 | 2006 | 55–19 | 74.3% | #5 | 1,944 | 0 | 6 | 2004 | 17–18 | 48.6% | #57 | 1,698 | 0 | 9 |
| 28 | 2007 | 43–22 | 66.2% | #18 | 1,807 | 0 | 8 | 2005 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #230 | 1,664 | 0 | 9 |
| 29 | 2008 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #44 | 1,724 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2009 | 32–23 | 58.2% | #24 | 1,894 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2010 | 26–19 | 57.8% | #17 | 1,884 | 0 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2011 | 25–19 | 56.8% | #30 | 1,909 | 0 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2012 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #53 | 1,794 | 0 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |