H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 07:16 UTC
Jurgen Zopp vs Daniel Brands H2H: 0-1
Daniel Brands holds a 1–0 lead over Jurgen Zopp 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 fourth round 7-6(3) 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.
EST
Age 38
Right-Handed
190 cm / 6'3"
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 27, 2012* | Bucharest | ATP 250 | R16 | Clay | Daniel Brands | 7-6(3) 6-3 | Jurgen Zopp | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jurgen Zopp | #1,406 | #71 | 656 | 1,718 | 16 | 31 | 34.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 | Jurgen Zopp | 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 | 2011 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #146 | 1,562 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #110 | 1,690 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2012 | 7–11 | 38.9% | #89 | 1,672 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #153 | 1,689 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2013 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #334 | 1,610 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 22–22 | 50.0% | #54 | 1,815 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2014 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #189 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 2–11 | 15.4% | #329 | 1,713 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2015 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #163 | 1,610 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #159 | 1,729 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2016 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #329 | 1,603 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #168 | 1,660 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2017 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #163 | 1,616 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #320 | 1,662 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2018 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #143 | 1,601 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #182 | 1,615 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2019 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #465 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 |