H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 07:16 UTC
Mario Ancic vs Mikhail Youzhny H2H: 1-1
Mario Ancic and Mikhail Youzhny are tied 1–1 in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Mikhail Youzhny leads 1–0 on carpet, while Mario Ancic leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Mario Ancic won the 2009 Rotterdam quarterfinal 6-4 6-2.
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
–
1
2 main draw meetings
RUS
Age 44
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 14, 2009* | Rotterdam | ATP 500 | QF | Hard | Mario Ancic | 6-4 6-2 | Mikhail Youzhny | Match data |
| Oct 26, 2007* | St. Petersburg | ATP 250 | R16 | Carpet | Mikhail Youzhny | 6-4 6-2 | Mario Ancic | 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 |
| Mikhail Youzhny | #115 | #8 | 3,500 | 2,069 | 477 | 405 | 54.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 10 |
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 | Mikhail Youzhny | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1999 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #286 | 1,493 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2002 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #89 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #113 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2003 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #74 | 1,621 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #58 | 1,694 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2004 | 26–21 | 55.3% | #29 | 1,732 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 30–22 | 57.7% | #32 | 1,866 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2005 | 42–23 | 64.6% | #21 | 1,798 | 0 | 1 | 2003 | 28–26 | 51.9% | #43 | 1,746 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2006 | 52–18 | 74.3% | #9 | 1,954 | 0 | 3 | 2004 | 38–25 | 60.3% | #16 | 1,870 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2007 | 13–10 | 56.5% | #83 | 1,880 | 0 | 3 | 2005 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #43 | 1,758 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 2008 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #36 | 1,903 | 0 | 3 | 2006 | 23–22 | 51.1% | #24 | 1,803 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 2009 | 12–7 | 63.2% | #95 | 1,905 | 0 | 3 | 2007 | 48–24 | 66.7% | #19 | 1,880 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 2010 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #478 | 1,866 | 0 | 3 | 2008 | 24–19 | 55.8% | #32 | 1,761 | 0 | 4 |
| 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 41–27 | 60.3% | #19 | 1,960 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 40–19 | 67.8% | #10 | 1,936 | 0 | 7 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 24–22 | 52.2% | #35 | 1,837 | 0 | 7 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 33–21 | 61.1% | #25 | 1,902 | 0 | 8 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 39–24 | 61.9% | #15 | 2,016 | 0 | 10 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 18–24 | 42.9% | #48 | 1,795 | 0 | 10 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 9–24 | 27.3% | #127 | 1,701 | 0 | 10 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2016 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #57 | 1,774 | 0 | 10 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 10–20 | 33.3% | #84 | 1,679 | 0 | 10 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2018 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #115 | 1,637 | 0 | 10 |