H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 07:16 UTC
Mario Ancic vs Danai Udomchoke H2H: 1-0
Mario Ancic holds a 1–0 lead over Danai Udomchoke in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Mario Ancic leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Mario Ancic won the 2005 Wimbledon second round 7-6(6) 3-6 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.
CRO
Age 42
Right-Handed
196 cm / 6'5"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
THA
Age 44
Right-Handed
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 24, 2005* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R64 | Grass | Mario Ancic | 7-6(6) 3-6 6-3 6-3 | Danai Udomchoke | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mario Ancic | #475 | #7 | 2,075 | 2,019 | 193 | 124 | 60.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Danai Udomchoke | #1,207 | #77 | 646 | 1,631 | 18 | 52 | 25.7% | 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 | Mario Ancic | Danai Udomchoke | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 2002 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #89 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2003 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #74 | 1,621 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #283 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2004 | 26–21 | 55.3% | #29 | 1,732 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #211 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2005 | 42–23 | 64.6% | #21 | 1,798 | 0 | 1 | 2003 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #162 | 1,437 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2006 | 52–18 | 74.3% | #9 | 1,954 | 0 | 3 | 2004 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #204 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2007 | 13–10 | 56.5% | #83 | 1,880 | 0 | 3 | 2005 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #121 | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2008 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #36 | 1,903 | 0 | 3 | 2006 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #104 | 1,564 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2009 | 12–7 | 63.2% | #95 | 1,905 | 0 | 3 | 2007 | 7–19 | 26.9% | #154 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2010 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #478 | 1,866 | 0 | 3 | 2008 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #152 | 1,525 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #162 | 1,501 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #457 | 1,480 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #210 | 1,508 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #149 | 1,524 | 0 | 0 |