H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 19:16 UTC
Mario Ancic vs Sjeng Schalken H2H: 2-0
Mario Ancic holds a 2–0 lead over Sjeng Schalken in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Mario Ancic leads 1–0 on grass and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Mario Ancic won the 2004 S Hertogenbosch third round 4-6 6-3 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
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
NED
Age 49
Right-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2004* | S Hertogenbosch | ATP 250 | R32 | Grass | Mario Ancic | 4-6 6-3 6-2 | Sjeng Schalken | Match data |
| Jan 17, 2003* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Mario Ancic | 6-3 1-6 6-7(10) 6-4 6-4 | Sjeng Schalken | 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 |
| Sjeng Schalken | #677 | #11 | 1,790 | 1,934 | 280 | 254 | 52.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 9 |
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 | Sjeng Schalken | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1994 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #148 | 1,501 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2002 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #89 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 17–14 | 54.8% | #69 | 1,645 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 2003 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #74 | 1,621 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 26–26 | 50.0% | #65 | 1,687 | 0 | 2 |
| 20 | 2004 | 26–21 | 55.3% | #29 | 1,732 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 16–25 | 39.0% | #59 | 1,632 | 0 | 3 |
| 21 | 2005 | 42–23 | 64.6% | #21 | 1,798 | 0 | 1 | 1998 | 22–30 | 42.3% | #66 | 1,592 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2006 | 52–18 | 74.3% | #9 | 1,954 | 0 | 3 | 1999 | 28–26 | 51.9% | #44 | 1,744 | 0 | 4 |
| 23 | 2007 | 13–10 | 56.5% | #83 | 1,880 | 0 | 3 | 2000 | 35–26 | 57.4% | #22 | 1,824 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 2008 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #36 | 1,903 | 0 | 3 | 2001 | 36–27 | 57.1% | #26 | 1,846 | 0 | 6 |
| 25 | 2009 | 12–7 | 63.2% | #95 | 1,905 | 0 | 3 | 2002 | 36–27 | 57.1% | #20 | 1,839 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 2010 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #478 | 1,866 | 0 | 3 | 2003 | 39–23 | 62.9% | #18 | 1,826 | 0 | 9 |
| 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 17–18 | 48.6% | #57 | 1,698 | 0 | 9 |
| 28 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #230 | 1,664 | 0 | 9 |