H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 07:16 UTC
Mario Ancic vs Tim Henman H2H: 2-1
Mario Ancic holds a 2–1 lead over Tim Henman in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while Mario Ancic leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Tim Henman won the 2006 Tokyo quarterfinal 6-2 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
–
1
3 main draw meetings
GBR
Age 51
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 7, 2006* | Tokyo | ATP 250 | QF | Hard | Tim Henman | 6-2 6-2 | Mario Ancic | Match data |
| Feb 19, 2005* | Rotterdam | ATP 250 | QF | Hard | Mario Ancic | 7-6(5) 7-6(4) | Tim Henman | Match data |
| Jul 2, 2004* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | QF | Grass | Mario Ancic | 7-6(5) 6-4 6-2 | Tim Henman | 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 |
| Tim Henman | #615 | #4 | 2,826 | 2,027 | 468 | 260 | 64.3% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 11 |
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 | Tim Henman | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2003 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #74 | 1,621 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #167 | 1,513 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2004 | 26–21 | 55.3% | #29 | 1,732 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 7–7 | 50.0% | #95 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2005 | 42–23 | 64.6% | #21 | 1,798 | 0 | 1 | 1996 | 37–24 | 60.7% | #29 | 1,821 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2006 | 52–18 | 74.3% | #9 | 1,954 | 0 | 3 | 1997 | 47–23 | 67.1% | #17 | 1,895 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2007 | 13–10 | 56.5% | #83 | 1,880 | 0 | 3 | 1998 | 55–29 | 65.5% | #7 | 1,960 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 2008 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #36 | 1,903 | 0 | 3 | 1999 | 41–25 | 62.1% | #12 | 1,785 | 0 | 4 |
| 25 | 2009 | 12–7 | 63.2% | #95 | 1,905 | 0 | 3 | 2000 | 55–23 | 70.5% | #10 | 1,953 | 0 | 6 |
| 26 | 2010 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #478 | 1,866 | 0 | 3 | 2001 | 49–20 | 71.0% | #9 | 1,924 | 0 | 8 |
| 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2002 | 45–18 | 71.4% | #8 | 1,867 | 0 | 9 |
| 28 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2003 | 30–16 | 65.2% | #15 | 1,970 | 0 | 11 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 41–20 | 67.2% | #6 | 1,926 | 0 | 11 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #36 | 1,746 | 0 | 11 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 31–20 | 60.8% | #39 | 1,868 | 0 | 11 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 4–12 | 25.0% | #292 | 1,684 | 0 | 11 |