H2H data updated: 2026-07-14 14:15 UTC
Daniel Vacek vs D. Nargiso H2H: 1-0
Daniel Vacek holds a 1–0 lead over D. Nargiso in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Daniel Vacek leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Daniel Vacek won the 1996 Milan third round 6-3 1-6 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
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
ITA
Age 56
Left-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 29, 1996* | Milan | ATP 250 | R32 | Carpet | Daniel Vacek | 6-3 1-6 6-1 | D. Nargiso | 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 |
| D. Nargiso | #1,400 | #67 | 531 | 1,702 | 94 | 152 | 38.2% | 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 | Daniel Vacek | D. Nargiso | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1987 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #191 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1988 | 10–12 | 45.5% | #90 | 1,621 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1989 | 11–19 | 36.7% | #150 | 1,590 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1991 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #470 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #147 | 1,618 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1991 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #109 | 1,603 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1993 | 13–22 | 37.1% | #114 | 1,560 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #88 | 1,596 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1994 | 25–27 | 48.1% | #45 | 1,711 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 8–23 | 25.8% | #120 | 1,525 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1995 | 30–31 | 49.2% | #27 | 1,794 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #118 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1996 | 22–28 | 44.0% | #71 | 1,694 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #183 | 1,528 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1997 | 19–26 | 42.2% | #53 | 1,669 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 2–8 | 20.0% | #280 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1998 | 25–29 | 46.3% | #50 | 1,672 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #152 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 1999 | 29–31 | 48.3% | #43 | 1,744 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #128 | 1,563 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2000 | 4–13 | 23.5% | #238 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #220 | 1,524 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2001 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #393 | 1,595 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 8–4 | 66.7% | #134 | 1,612 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2002 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #749 | 1,578 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |