H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Jakob Hlasek vs Daniel Vacek H2H: 1-0
Jakob Hlasek holds a 1–0 lead over Daniel Vacek in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Jakob Hlasek leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Jakob Hlasek won the 1996 Rotterdam third round 7-6(5) 6-4.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
SUI
Age 61
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
CZE
Age 55
Right-Handed
190 cm / 6'3"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7, 1996* | Rotterdam | ATP 250 | R32 | Carpet | Jakob Hlasek | 7-6(5) 6-4 | Daniel Vacek | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jakob Hlasek | #583 | #7 | 1,308 | 2,062 | 389 | 300 | 56.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| Daniel Vacek | #1,133 | #26 | 1,151 | 1,818 | 170 | 219 | 43.7% | 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.
| Age | Jakob Hlasek | Daniel Vacek | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 1982 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,516 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1983 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #227 | 1,567 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1984 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #91 | 1,647 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1985 | 29–23 | 55.8% | #33 | 1,784 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #470 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1986 | 35–25 | 58.3% | #32 | 1,732 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 1987 | 32–21 | 60.4% | #23 | 1,856 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 13–22 | 37.1% | #114 | 1,560 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1988 | 44–14 | 75.9% | #8 | 2,050 | 0 | 2 | 1994 | 25–27 | 48.1% | #45 | 1,711 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1989 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #30 | 1,795 | 0 | 3 | 1995 | 30–31 | 49.2% | #27 | 1,794 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1990 | 41–22 | 65.1% | #17 | 1,937 | 0 | 4 | 1996 | 22–28 | 44.0% | #71 | 1,694 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1991 | 45–25 | 64.3% | #20 | 1,869 | 0 | 5 | 1997 | 19–26 | 42.2% | #53 | 1,669 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1992 | 24–22 | 52.2% | #36 | 1,806 | 0 | 5 | 1998 | 25–29 | 46.3% | #50 | 1,672 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 1993 | 20–25 | 44.4% | #71 | 1,713 | 0 | 5 | 1999 | 29–31 | 48.3% | #43 | 1,744 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 1994 | 22–24 | 47.8% | #70 | 1,676 | 0 | 5 | 2000 | 4–13 | 23.5% | #238 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 1995 | 32–27 | 54.2% | #35 | 1,783 | 0 | 5 | 2001 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #393 | 1,595 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 1996 | 20–27 | 42.6% | #74 | 1,751 | 0 | 5 | 2002 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #749 | 1,578 | 0 | 0 |