H2H data updated: 2026-07-21 07:16 UTC
Mischa Zverev vs Matthew Ebden H2H: 1-0
Mischa Zverev holds a 1–0 lead over Matthew Ebden in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Mischa Zverev leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Mischa Zverev won the 2011 Indian Wells Masters first round 6-4 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.
GER
Age 38
Left-Handed
191 cm / 6'3"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
AUS
Age 38
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12, 2011* | Indian Wells Masters | Masters 1000 | R128 | Hard | Mischa Zverev | 6-4 6-3 | Matthew Ebden | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mischa Zverev | #1,373 | #25 | 1,664 | 2,007 | 134 | 199 | 40.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Matthew Ebden | #970 | #39 | 1,134 | 1,849 | 75 | 129 | 36.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Mischa Zverev | Matthew Ebden | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 2006 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #151 | 1,528 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2007 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #88 | 1,606 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 2008 | 18–23 | 43.9% | #80 | 1,703 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2009 | 15–24 | 38.5% | #78 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2010 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #82 | 1,689 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #196 | 1,526 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2011 | 2–18 | 10.0% | #211 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 10–10 | 50.0% | #86 | 1,762 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2012 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #159 | 1,608 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #105 | 1,644 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2013 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #176 | 1,639 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #68 | 1,634 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 5–21 | 19.2% | #231 | 1,540 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2015 | 7–8 | 46.7% | #171 | 1,839 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #105 | 1,631 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2016 | 12–14 | 46.2% | #51 | 1,917 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #698 | 1,571 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2017 | 30–31 | 49.2% | #33 | 1,850 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 9–7 | 56.2% | #76 | 1,738 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2018 | 19–29 | 39.6% | #69 | 1,686 | 0 | 1 | 2018 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #46 | 1,791 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2019 | 3–12 | 20.0% | #281 | 1,571 | 0 | 1 | 2019 | 5–16 | 23.8% | #244 | 1,654 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | 2020 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #264 | 1,568 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2021 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #346 | 1,521 | 0 | 1 | 2021 | 6–5 | 54.5% | #237 | 1,591 | 0 | 0 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #740 | 1,527 | 0 | 0 |
| 37 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2025 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,519 | 0 | 0 |