H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 19:16 UTC
Mackenzie McDonald vs Rajeev Ram H2H: 0-1
Rajeev Ram holds a 1–0 lead over Mackenzie McDonald in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Rajeev Ram leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Rajeev Ram won the 2016 Newport third round 6-2 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.
United States
Age 31
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 42
Right-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 14, 2016* | Newport | ATP 250 | R32 | Grass | Rajeev Ram | 6-2 6-3 | Mackenzie McDonald | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mackenzie McDonald | #140 | #37 | 1,146 | 1,868 | 113 | 146 | 43.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rajeev Ram | #1,076 | #56 | 826 | 1,747 | 57 | 94 | 37.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
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 | Mackenzie McDonald | Rajeev Ram | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 2013 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #673 | 1,533 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #536 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2003 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #437 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #297 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2016 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #321 | 1,452 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #195 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #197 | 1,457 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2018 | 9–13 | 40.9% | #78 | 1,693 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #253 | 1,417 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2019 | 10–12 | 45.5% | #129 | 1,716 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #190 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2020 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #193 | 1,684 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 8–6 | 57.1% | #79 | 1,579 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2021 | 18–19 | 48.6% | #55 | 1,787 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 6–18 | 25.0% | #184 | 1,590 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2022 | 26–28 | 48.1% | #63 | 1,721 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #149 | 1,605 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2023 | 31–27 | 53.4% | #41 | 1,830 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #132 | 1,635 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2024 | 4–13 | 23.5% | #131 | 1,672 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #127 | 1,646 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2025 | 9–17 | 34.6% | #114 | 1,647 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #139 | 1,660 | 0 | 1 |
| 31 | 2026 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #140 | 1,589 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #89 | 1,654 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2016 | 12–19 | 38.7% | #129 | 1,615 | 0 | 2 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #353 | 1,582 | 0 | 2 |