H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Mark Cox vs Rod Laver H2H: 2-4
Rod Laver holds a 4–2 lead over Mark Cox in their ATP head-to-head. Across 6 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on clay, while they are tied 1–1 on grass. Most recently, Rod Laver won the 1978 Richmond Wct fourth round 6-4 5-7 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.
GBR
Age 83
Left-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H
2
–
4
6 main draw meetings
AUS
Age 87
Left-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 3, 1978* | Richmond Wct | ATP 250 | R16 | Carpet | Rod Laver | 6-4 5-7 6-4 | Mark Cox | Match data |
| Apr 28, 1977* | Las Vegas | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Rod Laver | 6-2 6-3 | Mark Cox | Match data |
| Apr 26, 1972* | Charlotte Wct | ATP 250 | R32 | Clay | Mark Cox | 4-6 6-2 6-3 | Rod Laver | Match data |
| Mar 16, 1971* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R16 | Grass | Mark Cox | 6-3 4-6 6-3 7-6 | Rod Laver | Match data |
| Jul 3, 1968* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R16 | Grass | Rod Laver | 9-7 5-7 6-2 6-0 | Mark Cox | Match data |
| Apr 27, 1968* | Bournemouth | ATP 250 | SF | Clay | Rod Laver | 6-4 6-1 6-0 | Mark Cox | Match data |
* Estimated match date where the exact historical date is unavailable.
Career Comparison
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 | Mark Cox | Rod Laver | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 24 | 1968 | 52–23 | 69.3% | — | 1,722 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 25 | 1969 | 35–16 | 68.6% | — | 1,836 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 26 | 1970 | 39–31 | 55.7% | — | 1,796 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 1971 | 27–31 | 46.6% | — | 1,815 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 1972 | 43–29 | 59.7% | — | 1,871 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 1973 | 56–28 | 66.7% | #22 | 1,890 | 0 | 10 | 1968 | 73–19 | 79.3% | — | 1,881 | 1 | 13 |
| 30 | 1974 | 25–17 | 59.5% | #30 | 1,828 | 0 | 10 | 1969 | 97–14 | 87.4% | — | 2,161 | 5 | 29 |
| 31 | 1975 | 31–13 | 70.5% | #25 | 1,915 | 0 | 13 | 1970 | 89–15 | 85.6% | — | 2,213 | 5 | 42 |
| 32 | 1976 | 22–15 | 59.5% | #17 | 1,954 | 0 | 14 | 1971 | 85–20 | 81.0% | — | 2,155 | 5 | 49 |
| 33 | 1977 | 35–21 | 62.5% | #26 | 1,823 | 0 | 15 | 1972 | 50–16 | 75.8% | — | 2,016 | 5 | 54 |
| 34 | 1978 | 15–16 | 48.4% | #68 | 1,765 | 0 | 15 | 1973 | 67–16 | 80.7% | #8 | 2,088 | 5 | 61 |
| 35 | 1979 | 17–16 | 51.5% | #76 | 1,786 | 0 | 15 | 1974 | 45–10 | 81.8% | #4 | 2,115 | 5 | 67 |
| 36 | 1980 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #140 | 1,673 | 0 | 15 | 1975 | 52–13 | 80.0% | #10 | 2,087 | 5 | 72 |
| 37 | 1981 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #140 | 1,597 | 0 | 15 | 1976 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #73 | 1,995 | 5 | 72 |
| 38 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1977 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #124 | 1,927 | 5 | 72 |
| 39 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1978 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #216 | 1,917 | 5 | 72 |
| 40 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1979 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #662 | 1,901 | 5 | 72 |