H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Mario Ancic vs Thomas Johansson H2H: 2-1
Mario Ancic holds a 2–1 lead over Thomas Johansson in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Mario Ancic leads 2–0 on carpet, while Thomas Johansson leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Thomas Johansson won the 2007 Stockholm quarterfinal 4-6 7-5 7-6(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
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
SWE
Age 51
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 13, 2007* | Stockholm | ATP 250 | QF | Hard | Thomas Johansson | 4-6 7-5 7-6(3) | Mario Ancic | Match data |
| Oct 29, 2006* | St. Petersburg | ATP 250 | F | Carpet | Mario Ancic | 7-5 7-6(2) | Thomas Johansson | Match data |
| Feb 14, 2004* | Milan | ATP 250 | SF | Carpet | Mario Ancic | 6-3 6-4 | Thomas Johansson | 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 Johansson | #586 | #7 | 2,365 | 1,969 | 336 | 277 | 54.8% | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 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 | Thomas Johansson | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1993 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #422 | 1,535 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2003 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #74 | 1,621 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #486 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2004 | 26–21 | 55.3% | #29 | 1,732 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #117 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2005 | 42–23 | 64.6% | #21 | 1,798 | 0 | 1 | 1996 | 28–21 | 57.1% | #60 | 1,763 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2006 | 52–18 | 74.3% | #9 | 1,954 | 0 | 3 | 1997 | 32–27 | 54.2% | #39 | 1,699 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2007 | 13–10 | 56.5% | #83 | 1,880 | 0 | 3 | 1998 | 46–30 | 60.5% | #17 | 1,899 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 2008 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #36 | 1,903 | 0 | 3 | 1999 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #39 | 1,725 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2009 | 12–7 | 63.2% | #95 | 1,905 | 0 | 3 | 2000 | 22–25 | 46.8% | #39 | 1,825 | 0 | 4 |
| 26 | 2010 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #478 | 1,866 | 0 | 3 | 2001 | 42–23 | 64.6% | #18 | 1,875 | 0 | 6 |
| 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2002 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #14 | 1,746 | 1 | 7 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #30 | 1,855 | 1 | 8 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 42–24 | 63.6% | #13 | 1,892 | 1 | 9 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 11–16 | 40.7% | #71 | 1,723 | 1 | 9 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 23–23 | 50.0% | #62 | 1,759 | 1 | 9 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 11–17 | 39.3% | #136 | 1,673 | 1 | 9 |