H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 19:16 UTC
Gael Monfils vs Michal Przysiezny H2H: 1-0
Gael Monfils holds a 1–0 lead over Michal Przysiezny in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Gael Monfils leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Gael Monfils won the 2014 Metz fourth round 7-5 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.
France
Age 39
Right-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 19, 2014* | Metz | ATP 250 | R16 | Hard | Gael Monfils | 7-5 6-1 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gael Monfils | #325 | #6 | 3,815 | 2,151 | 569 | 356 | 61.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 10 | 13 |
| 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.
| Gael Monfils | Michal Przysiezny | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2004 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #239 | 1,541 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #339 | 1,478 | 0 | 0 |
| 2005 | 25–22 | 53.2% | #30 | 1,753 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #257 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 |
| 2006 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #46 | 1,721 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #256 | 1,540 | 0 | 0 |
| 2007 | 21–21 | 50.0% | #38 | 1,781 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #609 | 1,514 | 0 | 0 |
| 2008 | 27–16 | 62.8% | #14 | 1,933 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #183 | 1,516 | 0 | 0 |
| 2009 | 42–19 | 68.9% | #13 | 1,994 | 0 | 2 | 2010 | 1–12 | 7.7% | #86 | 1,438 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 42–19 | 68.9% | #12 | 2,062 | 0 | 3 | 2011 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #306 | 1,444 | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 | 37–17 | 68.5% | #16 | 1,996 | 0 | 4 | 2013 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #66 | 1,776 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 18–10 | 64.3% | #77 | 1,936 | 0 | 4 | 2014 | 4–17 | 19.0% | #174 | 1,669 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 33–22 | 60.0% | #31 | 1,929 | 0 | 4 | 2015 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #193 | 1,671 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 32–15 | 68.1% | #18 | 2,054 | 0 | 5 | 2016 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #428 | 1,658 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 33–18 | 64.7% | #24 | 1,951 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2016 | 40–17 | 70.2% | #7 | 2,052 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2017 | 20–14 | 58.8% | #46 | 1,966 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2018 | 30–20 | 60.0% | #29 | 1,921 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2019 | 37–20 | 64.9% | #10 | 1,920 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2020 | 15–6 | 71.4% | #11 | 1,934 | 0 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2021 | 19–16 | 54.3% | #21 | 1,910 | 0 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2022 | 14–7 | 66.7% | #52 | 1,934 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2023 | 15–12 | 55.6% | #74 | 1,925 | 0 | 12 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2024 | 25–21 | 54.3% | #55 | 1,895 | 0 | 12 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2025 | 18–16 | 52.9% | #68 | 1,771 | 0 | 13 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2026 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #325 | 1,685 | 0 | 13 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |