H2H data updated: 2026-07-17 14:15 UTC
Daniel Vacek vs David Prinosil H2H: 3-0
Daniel Vacek holds a 3–0 lead over David Prinosil in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Daniel Vacek leads 2–0 on hard courts and 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Daniel Vacek won the 1998 Tokyo quarterfinal 6-4 6-1.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
CZE
Age 55
Right-Handed
190 cm / 6'3"
H2H
3
–
0
3 main draw meetings
GER
Age 53
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 18, 1998* | Tokyo | ATP 250 | QF | Hard | Daniel Vacek | 6-4 6-1 | David Prinosil | Match data |
| Nov 6, 1997* | Moscow | ATP 250 | R32 | Carpet | Daniel Vacek | 6-0 6-2 | David Prinosil | Match data |
| Aug 13, 1997* | New Haven | ATP 250 | R64 | Hard | Daniel Vacek | 6-2 6-4 | David Prinosil | 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 Vacek | #1,133 | #26 | 1,151 | 1,818 | 170 | 219 | 43.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| David Prinosil | #1,091 | #28 | 1,040 | 1,800 | 165 | 208 | 44.2% | 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 | Daniel Vacek | David Prinosil | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1992 | 9–9 | 50.0% | #125 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1991 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #470 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 16–25 | 39.0% | #77 | 1,633 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1994 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #130 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1993 | 13–22 | 37.1% | #114 | 1,560 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 19–18 | 51.4% | #50 | 1,708 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 1994 | 25–27 | 48.1% | #45 | 1,711 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 24–23 | 51.1% | #39 | 1,779 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 1995 | 30–31 | 49.2% | #27 | 1,794 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 16–26 | 38.1% | #89 | 1,633 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 1996 | 22–28 | 44.0% | #71 | 1,694 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 20–25 | 44.4% | #78 | 1,622 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 1997 | 19–26 | 42.2% | #53 | 1,669 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 22–23 | 48.9% | #66 | 1,672 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 1998 | 25–29 | 46.3% | #50 | 1,672 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 22–17 | 56.4% | #38 | 1,788 | 0 | 3 |
| 28 | 1999 | 29–31 | 48.3% | #43 | 1,744 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 7–22 | 24.1% | #132 | 1,606 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2000 | 4–13 | 23.5% | #238 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #229 | 1,593 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2001 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #393 | 1,595 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #276 | 1,521 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 2002 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #749 | 1,578 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1063 | 1,515 | 0 | 3 |