H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Denis Istomin vs Lukas Rosol H2H: 1-3
Lukas Rosol holds a 3–1 lead over Denis Istomin in their ATP head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on clay, while Lukas Rosol leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Lukas Rosol won the 2016 Munich third round 6-7(2) 6-4 7-6(2).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
UZB
Age 39
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H
1
–
3
4 main draw meetings
CZE
Age 40
Right-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 28, 2016* | Munich | ATP 250 | R32 | Clay | Lukas Rosol | 6-7(2) 6-4 7-6(2) | Denis Istomin | Match data |
| Oct 1, 2015* | Shenzhen | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Lukas Rosol | 7-6(4) 6-4 | Denis Istomin | Match data |
| Oct 19, 2012* | Moscow | ATP 250 | R16 | Hard | Lukas Rosol | 4-6 6-4 6-3 | Denis Istomin | Match data |
| Jul 21, 2010* | Hamburg | ATP 500 | R64 | Clay | Denis Istomin | 3-6 6-4 6-3 | Lukas Rosol | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Denis Istomin | #1,509 | #33 | 1,217 | 1,900 | 191 | 245 | 43.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Lukas Rosol | #1,777 | #26 | 1,290 | 1,921 | 110 | 148 | 42.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
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 | Denis Istomin | Lukas Rosol | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 19 | 2006 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #200 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2008 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #105 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #271 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2009 | 13–17 | 43.3% | #102 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #182 | 1,535 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2010 | 29–29 | 50.0% | #40 | 1,767 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #148 | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2011 | 10–21 | 32.3% | #73 | 1,665 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #164 | 1,575 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2012 | 26–29 | 47.3% | #43 | 1,732 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 5–13 | 27.8% | #70 | 1,576 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2013 | 30–29 | 50.8% | #45 | 1,808 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 17–18 | 48.6% | #73 | 1,748 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2014 | 24–23 | 51.1% | #49 | 1,853 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 21–24 | 46.7% | #47 | 1,742 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2015 | 20–23 | 46.5% | #61 | 1,788 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 28–26 | 51.9% | #31 | 1,798 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2016 | 6–19 | 24.0% | #121 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 19–28 | 40.4% | #55 | 1,846 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 2017 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #63 | 1,724 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 14–22 | 38.9% | #113 | 1,726 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | 2018 | 12–18 | 40.0% | #92 | 1,679 | 0 | 2 | 2017 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #203 | 1,671 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | 2019 | 3–11 | 21.4% | #177 | 1,567 | 0 | 2 | 2018 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #142 | 1,703 | 0 | 2 |
| 33 | 2020 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #184 | 1,545 | 0 | 2 | 2019 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #180 | 1,660 | 0 | 2 |
| 34 | 2021 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #254 | 1,545 | 0 | 2 | 2020 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #199 | 1,658 | 0 | 2 |
| 35 | 2022 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #467 | 1,577 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #216 | 1,588 | 0 | 2 |