H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 14:16 UTC
Mikhail Kukushkin vs Ivan Ljubicic H2H: 0-1
Ivan Ljubicic holds a 1–0 lead over Mikhail Kukushkin in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Ivan Ljubicic leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Ivan Ljubicic won the 2008 Umag third round 6-1 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.
Kazakhstan
Age 38
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
CRO
Age 47
Right-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 17, 2008* | Umag | ATP 250 | R32 | Clay | Ivan Ljubicic | 6-1 6-2 | Mikhail Kukushkin | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mikhail Kukushkin | #316 | #39 | 1,075 | 1,907 | 144 | 218 | 39.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Ivan Ljubicic | #53 | #3 | 3,315 | 2,052 | 400 | 282 | 58.7% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 10 |
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 | Mikhail Kukushkin | Ivan Ljubicic | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1996 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #576 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1997 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #289 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #218 | 1,513 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #293 | 1,482 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2008 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #148 | 1,593 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #77 | 1,587 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2009 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #132 | 1,690 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 19–21 | 47.5% | #91 | 1,654 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2010 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #59 | 1,809 | 0 | 1 | 2001 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #37 | 1,824 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2011 | 7–20 | 25.9% | #91 | 1,659 | 0 | 1 | 2002 | 27–27 | 50.0% | #49 | 1,741 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2012 | 10–13 | 43.5% | #107 | 1,708 | 0 | 1 | 2003 | 27–23 | 54.0% | #42 | 1,791 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2013 | 6–5 | 54.5% | #67 | 1,783 | 0 | 1 | 2004 | 33–22 | 60.0% | #22 | 1,809 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2014 | 15–24 | 38.5% | #70 | 1,803 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 50–23 | 68.5% | #9 | 1,951 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 2015 | 16–23 | 41.0% | #65 | 1,752 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 55–19 | 74.3% | #5 | 1,944 | 0 | 6 |
| 28 | 2016 | 11–20 | 35.5% | #89 | 1,656 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 43–22 | 66.2% | #18 | 1,807 | 0 | 8 |
| 29 | 2017 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #74 | 1,731 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #44 | 1,724 | 0 | 8 |
| 30 | 2018 | 19–21 | 47.5% | #53 | 1,834 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 32–23 | 58.2% | #24 | 1,894 | 0 | 9 |
| 31 | 2019 | 19–25 | 43.2% | #67 | 1,796 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 26–19 | 57.8% | #17 | 1,884 | 0 | 10 |
| 32 | 2020 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #89 | 1,744 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 25–19 | 56.8% | #30 | 1,909 | 0 | 10 |
| 33 | 2021 | 2–11 | 15.4% | #182 | 1,599 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #53 | 1,794 | 0 | 10 |
| 34 | 2022 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #188 | 1,663 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2023 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #264 | 1,660 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2024 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #113 | 1,603 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 2025 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #298 | 1,527 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |