H2H data updated: 2026-07-20 01:16 UTC
Mario Ancic vs Nicolas Mahut H2H: 1-0
Mario Ancic holds a 1–0 lead over Nicolas Mahut in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Mario Ancic leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Mario Ancic won the 2008 Zagreb third round 7-6(3) 7-6(6).
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
FRA
Age 44
Right-Handed
191 cm / 6'3"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 28, 2008* | Zagreb | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Mario Ancic | 7-6(3) 7-6(6) | Nicolas Mahut | 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 |
| Nicolas Mahut | #1,433 | #37 | 1,122 | 1,926 | 179 | 224 | 44.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
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 | Nicolas Mahut | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2000 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #388 | 1,516 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2003 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #74 | 1,621 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #216 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2004 | 26–21 | 55.3% | #29 | 1,732 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #269 | 1,445 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2005 | 42–23 | 64.6% | #21 | 1,798 | 0 | 1 | 2003 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #94 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2006 | 52–18 | 74.3% | #9 | 1,954 | 0 | 3 | 2004 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #131 | 1,545 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2007 | 13–10 | 56.5% | #83 | 1,880 | 0 | 3 | 2005 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #134 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2008 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #36 | 1,903 | 0 | 3 | 2006 | 11–19 | 36.7% | #66 | 1,581 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2009 | 12–7 | 63.2% | #95 | 1,905 | 0 | 3 | 2007 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #45 | 1,732 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2010 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #478 | 1,866 | 0 | 3 | 2008 | 16–26 | 38.1% | #94 | 1,644 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #214 | 1,633 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #132 | 1,662 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #80 | 1,765 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 16–18 | 47.1% | #108 | 1,754 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 17–7 | 70.8% | #50 | 1,851 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 14–23 | 37.8% | #117 | 1,666 | 0 | 2 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 11–10 | 52.4% | #71 | 1,767 | 0 | 3 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2016 | 23–20 | 53.5% | #39 | 1,869 | 0 | 4 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 14–19 | 42.4% | #103 | 1,753 | 0 | 4 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2018 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #190 | 1,707 | 0 | 4 |
| 37 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2019 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #194 | 1,707 | 0 | 4 |