H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Denis Istomin vs Michal Przysiezny H2H: 1-0
Denis Istomin holds a 1–0 lead over Michal Przysiezny in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Denis Istomin leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Denis Istomin won the 2014 Tokyo fourth round 6-4 7-6(5).
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
–
0
1 main draw meetings
POL
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 3, 2014* | Tokyo | ATP 500 | R16 | Hard | Denis Istomin | 6-4 7-6(5) | Michal Przysiezny | 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 |
| Michal Przysiezny | #1,345 | #57 | 810 | 1,784 | 19 | 58 | 24.7% | 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.
| Denis Istomin | Michal Przysiezny | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2006 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #200 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #339 | 1,478 | 0 | 0 |
| 2008 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #105 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #257 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 |
| 2009 | 13–17 | 43.3% | #102 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #256 | 1,540 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 29–29 | 50.0% | #40 | 1,767 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #609 | 1,514 | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 | 10–21 | 32.3% | #73 | 1,665 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #183 | 1,516 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 26–29 | 47.3% | #43 | 1,732 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 1–12 | 7.7% | #86 | 1,438 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 30–29 | 50.8% | #45 | 1,808 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #306 | 1,444 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 24–23 | 51.1% | #49 | 1,853 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #66 | 1,776 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 20–23 | 46.5% | #61 | 1,788 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 4–17 | 19.0% | #174 | 1,669 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 6–19 | 24.0% | #121 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #193 | 1,671 | 0 | 0 |
| 2017 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #63 | 1,724 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #428 | 1,658 | 0 | 0 |
| 2018 | 12–18 | 40.0% | #92 | 1,679 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2019 | 3–11 | 21.4% | #177 | 1,567 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2020 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #184 | 1,545 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2021 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #254 | 1,545 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2022 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #467 | 1,577 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |