H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 13:16 UTC
Daniel Evans vs Nikolay Davydenko H2H: 0-1
Nikolay Davydenko holds a 1–0 lead over Daniel Evans in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Nikolay Davydenko leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Nikolay Davydenko won the 2009 Wimbledon first round 6-2 6-3 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.
Great Britain
Age 36
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
RUS
Age 45
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 24, 2009* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R128 | Grass | Nikolay Davydenko | 6-2 6-3 6-3 | Daniel Evans | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Daniel Evans | #385 | #21 | 2,195 | 1,927 | 140 | 160 | 46.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Nikolay Davydenko | #248 | #3 | 5,335 | 2,213 | 467 | 324 | 59.0% | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 16 | 21 |
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 | Daniel Evans | Nikolay Davydenko | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 2008 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #477 | 1,465 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #261 | 1,441 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 3–1 | 75.0% | #133 | 1,544 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #363 | 1,505 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 6–15 | 28.6% | #79 | 1,568 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2011 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #342 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 12–24 | 33.3% | #81 | 1,601 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2012 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #297 | 1,533 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 29–30 | 49.2% | #44 | 1,595 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2013 | 4–2 | 66.7% | #150 | 1,689 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 32–28 | 53.3% | #28 | 1,758 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 2014 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #305 | 1,677 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 52–29 | 64.2% | #5 | 1,868 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 67–28 | 70.5% | #3 | 1,971 | 0 | 10 |
| 26 | 2016 | 9–8 | 52.9% | #66 | 1,790 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 53–30 | 63.9% | #4 | 1,935 | 0 | 11 |
| 27 | 2017 | 11–10 | 52.4% | #133 | 1,820 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 51–20 | 71.8% | #5 | 1,974 | 0 | 14 |
| 28 | 2018 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #192 | 1,787 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 57–19 | 75.0% | #6 | 2,142 | 0 | 19 |
| 29 | 2019 | 18–18 | 50.0% | #42 | 1,817 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 29–19 | 60.4% | #22 | 1,897 | 0 | 20 |
| 30 | 2020 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #32 | 1,858 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 26–25 | 51.0% | #41 | 1,848 | 0 | 21 |
| 31 | 2021 | 23–22 | 51.1% | #25 | 1,836 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #44 | 1,824 | 0 | 21 |
| 32 | 2022 | 27–26 | 50.9% | #27 | 1,850 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 22–22 | 50.0% | #53 | 1,824 | 0 | 21 |
| 33 | 2023 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #38 | 1,761 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #250 | 1,730 | 0 | 21 |
| 34 | 2024 | 6–19 | 24.0% | #164 | 1,704 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2025 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #185 | 1,724 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |