H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 07:16 UTC
Stan Wawrinka vs Tomas Zib H2H: 1-1
Stan Wawrinka and Tomas Zib are tied 1–1 in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Tomas Zib leads 1–0 on carpet, while Stan Wawrinka leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Stan Wawrinka won the 2006 Auckland third round 6-3 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.
Switzerland
Age 41
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
CZE
Age 50
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 12, 2006* | Auckland | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Stan Wawrinka | 6-3 6-4 | Tomas Zib | Match data |
| Oct 23, 2003* | Basel | ATP 250 | R32 | Carpet | Tomas Zib | 7-6(0) 7-6(5) | Stan Wawrinka | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stan Wawrinka | #117 | #3 | 6,865 | 2,268 | 564 | 371 | 60.3% | 3 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 9 | 16 |
| Tomas Zib | #1,339 | #51 | 688 | 1,636 | 41 | 94 | 30.4% | 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 | Stan Wawrinka | Tomas Zib | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 2003 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #171 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2004 | 0–6 | 0.0% | #168 | 1,421 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 2005 | 14–14 | 50.0% | #54 | 1,632 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2006 | 31–23 | 57.4% | #30 | 1,867 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2007 | 21–22 | 48.8% | #36 | 1,865 | 0 | 1 | 1998 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #172 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2008 | 33–20 | 62.3% | #13 | 1,860 | 0 | 1 | 1999 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #111 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2009 | 29–19 | 60.4% | #21 | 1,875 | 0 | 1 | 2000 | 5–13 | 27.8% | #117 | 1,465 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2010 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #21 | 1,991 | 0 | 2 | 2001 | 3–11 | 21.4% | #224 | 1,438 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2011 | 33–19 | 63.5% | #17 | 1,915 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2012 | 34–18 | 65.4% | #17 | 2,018 | 0 | 3 | 2003 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #145 | 1,466 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2013 | 49–23 | 68.1% | #8 | 2,113 | 0 | 4 | 2004 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #121 | 1,482 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2014 | 38–16 | 70.4% | #4 | 2,071 | 1 | 7 | 2005 | 18–27 | 40.0% | #59 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2015 | 54–19 | 74.0% | #4 | 2,199 | 2 | 11 | 2006 | 4–20 | 16.7% | #133 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2016 | 46–18 | 71.9% | #4 | 2,129 | 3 | 15 | 2007 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #138 | 1,535 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | 2017 | 26–11 | 70.3% | #9 | 2,120 | 3 | 16 | 2008 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #416 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 |
| 33 | 2018 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #66 | 1,946 | 3 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2019 | 33–20 | 62.3% | #16 | 2,021 | 3 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2020 | 15–8 | 65.2% | #18 | 2,001 | 3 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2021 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,916 | 3 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 2022 | 8–14 | 36.4% | #148 | 1,824 | 3 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2023 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #49 | 1,782 | 3 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 39 | 2024 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #161 | 1,714 | 3 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 40 | 2025 | 4–13 | 23.5% | #157 | 1,640 | 3 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 41 | 2026 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #117 | 1,632 | 3 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |