H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 14:16 UTC
Richard Gasquet vs Mario Ancic H2H: 2-1
Richard Gasquet holds a 2–1 lead over Mario Ancic in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Richard Gasquet leads 2–0 on grass, while Mario Ancic leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Richard Gasquet won the 2008 Queen's Club fourth round 7-6(5) 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.
France
Age 40
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
CRO
Age 42
Right-Handed
196 cm / 6'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 13, 2008* | Queen's Club | ATP 500 | R16 | Grass | Richard Gasquet | 7-6(5) 6-4 | Mario Ancic | Match data |
| Aug 18, 2005* | Cincinnati Masters | Masters 1000 | R32 | Hard | Mario Ancic | 6-4 7-6(4) | Richard Gasquet | Match data |
| Jun 10, 2005* | Queen's Club | ATP 250 | R16 | Grass | Richard Gasquet | 7-5 1-6 6-3 | Mario Ancic | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Richard Gasquet | #448 | #7 | 3,365 | 2,165 | 596 | 406 | 59.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 16 |
| Mario Ancic | #475 | #7 | 2,075 | 2,019 | 193 | 124 | 60.9% | 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 | Richard Gasquet | Mario Ancic | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2002 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #161 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2003 | 2–8 | 20.0% | #93 | 1,463 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2004 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #107 | 1,597 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #89 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2005 | 30–10 | 75.0% | #16 | 1,851 | 0 | 1 | 2003 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #74 | 1,621 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2006 | 33–20 | 62.3% | #18 | 1,922 | 0 | 4 | 2004 | 26–21 | 55.3% | #29 | 1,732 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2007 | 47–24 | 66.2% | #8 | 1,920 | 0 | 5 | 2005 | 42–23 | 64.6% | #21 | 1,798 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2008 | 31–21 | 59.6% | #25 | 1,869 | 0 | 5 | 2006 | 52–18 | 74.3% | #9 | 1,954 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 2009 | 23–15 | 60.5% | #52 | 1,855 | 0 | 5 | 2007 | 13–10 | 56.5% | #83 | 1,880 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 2010 | 38–24 | 61.3% | #30 | 1,892 | 0 | 6 | 2008 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #36 | 1,903 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2011 | 34–18 | 65.4% | #19 | 1,984 | 0 | 6 | 2009 | 12–7 | 63.2% | #95 | 1,905 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 2012 | 41–21 | 66.1% | #10 | 2,002 | 0 | 7 | 2010 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #478 | 1,866 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 2013 | 48–23 | 67.6% | #9 | 2,046 | 0 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2014 | 29–19 | 60.4% | #26 | 1,935 | 0 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2015 | 43–17 | 71.7% | #9 | 2,127 | 0 | 12 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2016 | 33–17 | 66.0% | #18 | 1,998 | 0 | 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2017 | 28–18 | 60.9% | #31 | 1,956 | 0 | 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2018 | 34–23 | 59.6% | #26 | 1,933 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2019 | 17–18 | 48.6% | #61 | 1,844 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2020 | 10–10 | 50.0% | #47 | 1,823 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2021 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #87 | 1,772 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2022 | 24–19 | 55.8% | #68 | 1,860 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 2023 | 15–25 | 37.5% | #76 | 1,628 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2024 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #129 | 1,620 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 39 | 2025 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #313 | 1,636 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |