H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Marko Ostoja vs Mel Purcell H2H: 0-1
Mel Purcell holds a 1–0 lead over Marko Ostoja in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Mel Purcell leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Mel Purcell won the 1985 Philadelphia second round 4-6 7-6 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 65
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 67
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 23, 1985* | Philadelphia | ATP 250 | R64 | Carpet | Mel Purcell | 4-6 7-6 6-4 | Marko Ostoja | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marko Ostoja | #1,220 | #74 | 92 | 1,711 | 77 | 136 | 36.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Mel Purcell | #673 | #21 | 21 | 1,991 | 190 | 164 | 53.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
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 | Marko Ostoja | Mel Purcell | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 1979 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #377 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | 1978 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #555 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1980 | 4–7 | 36.4% | #203 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 | 1979 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #245 | 1,508 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1981 | 14–20 | 41.2% | #203 | 1,591 | 0 | 1 | 1980 | 19–13 | 59.4% | #27 | 1,742 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1982 | 14–21 | 40.0% | #172 | 1,583 | 0 | 1 | 1981 | 48–20 | 70.6% | #24 | 1,914 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 1983 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #95 | 1,586 | 0 | 1 | 1982 | 38–24 | 61.3% | #28 | 1,837 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 1984 | 13–21 | 38.2% | #125 | 1,613 | 0 | 1 | 1983 | 30–25 | 54.5% | #28 | 1,770 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 1985 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #166 | 1,546 | 0 | 1 | 1984 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #67 | 1,702 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 1986 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #136 | 1,544 | 0 | 1 | 1985 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #129 | 1,705 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 1987 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #467 | 1,482 | 0 | 1 | 1986 | 12–16 | 42.9% | #72 | 1,649 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 1988 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #199 | 1,512 | 0 | 1 | 1987 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #140 | 1,529 | 0 | 3 |
| 28 | 1989 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #224 | 1,511 | 0 | 1 | 1988 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #268 | 1,537 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 1990 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #624 | 1,494 | 0 | 1 | 1989 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #504 | 1,525 | 0 | 3 |