H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 19:16 UTC
Mario Ancic vs Thomas Enqvist H2H: 1-0
Mario Ancic holds a 1–0 lead over Thomas Enqvist in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Mario Ancic leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Mario Ancic won the 2005 Lyon fourth round 6-7(4) 7-6(5) 6-4.
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
SWE
Age 52
Right-Handed
190 cm / 6'3"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 28, 2005* | Lyon | ATP 250 | R16 | Carpet | Mario Ancic | 6-7(4) 7-6(5) 6-4 | Thomas Enqvist | 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 |
| Thomas Enqvist | #548 | #4 | 2,693 | 2,013 | 422 | 281 | 60.0% | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 19 |
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 | Thomas Enqvist | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1989 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1103 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1990 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #472 | 1,480 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1991 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #231 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2002 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #89 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 16–9 | 64.0% | #63 | 1,734 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 2003 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #74 | 1,621 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 18–23 | 43.9% | #88 | 1,712 | 0 | 2 |
| 20 | 2004 | 26–21 | 55.3% | #29 | 1,732 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 23–19 | 54.8% | #59 | 1,761 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 2005 | 42–23 | 64.6% | #21 | 1,798 | 0 | 1 | 1995 | 63–22 | 74.1% | #7 | 1,982 | 0 | 7 |
| 22 | 2006 | 52–18 | 74.3% | #9 | 1,954 | 0 | 3 | 1996 | 49–25 | 66.2% | #9 | 1,980 | 0 | 10 |
| 23 | 2007 | 13–10 | 56.5% | #83 | 1,880 | 0 | 3 | 1997 | 35–21 | 62.5% | #28 | 1,873 | 0 | 11 |
| 24 | 2008 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #36 | 1,903 | 0 | 3 | 1998 | 35–15 | 70.0% | #22 | 1,869 | 0 | 13 |
| 25 | 2009 | 12–7 | 63.2% | #95 | 1,905 | 0 | 3 | 1999 | 45–25 | 64.3% | #4 | 1,913 | 0 | 16 |
| 26 | 2010 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #478 | 1,866 | 0 | 3 | 2000 | 51–23 | 68.9% | #9 | 1,906 | 0 | 18 |
| 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2001 | 31–21 | 59.6% | #24 | 1,848 | 0 | 18 |
| 28 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2002 | 23–17 | 57.5% | #44 | 1,792 | 0 | 19 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2003 | 13–23 | 36.1% | #96 | 1,710 | 0 | 19 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 12–19 | 38.7% | #72 | 1,627 | 0 | 19 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #133 | 1,589 | 0 | 19 |