H2H data updated: 2026-07-20 07:16 UTC
John Isner vs Ricardo Mello H2H: 1-1
John Isner and Ricardo Mello are tied 1–1 in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Ricardo Mello leads 1–0 on clay, while John Isner leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Ricardo Mello won the 2011 Belgrade third round 6-4 7-6(4).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
USA
Age 41
Right-Handed
208 cm / 6'10"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
BRA
Age 45
Left-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 28, 2011* | Belgrade | ATP 250 | R32 | Clay | Ricardo Mello | 6-4 7-6(4) | John Isner | Match data |
| Mar 13, 2011* | Indian Wells Masters | Masters 1000 | R64 | Hard | John Isner | 6-3 7-6(2) | Ricardo Mello | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| John Isner | #660 | #8 | 3,720 | 2,053 | 467 | 293 | 61.4% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 16 |
| Ricardo Mello | #1,018 | #50 | 738 | 1,773 | 52 | 87 | 37.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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 | John Isner | Ricardo Mello | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2001 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #133 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2002 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #144 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2007 | 8–5 | 61.5% | #106 | 1,656 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #128 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2008 | 11–19 | 36.7% | #144 | 1,608 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #71 | 1,735 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2009 | 27–18 | 60.0% | #34 | 1,828 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #111 | 1,556 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2010 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #19 | 1,882 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #134 | 1,490 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2011 | 34–19 | 64.2% | #18 | 2,021 | 0 | 3 | 2007 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #257 | 1,575 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2012 | 38–18 | 67.9% | #14 | 1,965 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2013 | 38–22 | 63.3% | #14 | 1,983 | 0 | 7 | 2009 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #151 | 1,587 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2014 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #19 | 1,922 | 0 | 9 | 2010 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #76 | 1,608 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2015 | 45–23 | 66.2% | #11 | 2,026 | 0 | 10 | 2011 | 8–14 | 36.4% | #85 | 1,668 | 0 | 1 |
| 31 | 2016 | 30–20 | 60.0% | #19 | 2,019 | 0 | 10 | 2012 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #286 | 1,626 | 0 | 1 |
| 32 | 2017 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #17 | 1,984 | 0 | 12 | 2013 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1018 | 1,603 | 0 | 1 |
| 33 | 2018 | 32–22 | 59.3% | #10 | 1,956 | 0 | 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2019 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #19 | 1,921 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2020 | 10–7 | 58.8% | #25 | 1,845 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2021 | 23–11 | 67.6% | #24 | 1,933 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 2022 | 22–16 | 57.9% | #41 | 1,891 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2023 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #172 | 1,698 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |