H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Jo-Wilfried Tsonga vs Michal Przysiezny H2H: 0-1
Michal Przysiezny holds a 1–0 lead over Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Michal Przysiezny leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Michal Przysiezny won the 2014 Tokyo third round 4-6 7-5 7-6(9).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
FRA
Age 41
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
POL
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 2, 2014* | Tokyo | ATP 500 | R32 | Hard | Michal Przysiezny | 4-6 7-5 7-6(9) | Jo-Wilfried Tsonga | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jo-Wilfried Tsonga | #296 | #5 | 5,230 | 2,208 | 445 | 228 | 66.1% | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 13 | 18 |
| 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.
| Jo-Wilfried Tsonga | Michal Przysiezny | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2004 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #163 | 1,549 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #339 | 1,478 | 0 | 0 |
| 2005 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #338 | 1,547 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #257 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 |
| 2007 | 14–10 | 58.3% | #43 | 1,768 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #256 | 1,540 | 0 | 0 |
| 2008 | 33–15 | 68.8% | #6 | 1,994 | 0 | 2 | 2008 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #609 | 1,514 | 0 | 0 |
| 2009 | 48–20 | 70.6% | #10 | 1,976 | 0 | 5 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #183 | 1,516 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 30–15 | 66.7% | #13 | 1,974 | 0 | 5 | 2010 | 1–12 | 7.7% | #86 | 1,438 | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 | 56–23 | 70.9% | #6 | 2,161 | 0 | 7 | 2011 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #306 | 1,444 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 51–23 | 68.9% | #8 | 2,054 | 0 | 9 | 2013 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #66 | 1,776 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 36–16 | 69.2% | #10 | 2,051 | 0 | 10 | 2014 | 4–17 | 19.0% | #174 | 1,669 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 34–17 | 66.7% | #12 | 2,070 | 0 | 11 | 2015 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #193 | 1,671 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 32–15 | 68.1% | #10 | 2,089 | 0 | 12 | 2016 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #428 | 1,658 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 34–15 | 69.4% | #12 | 2,141 | 0 | 12 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2017 | 35–15 | 70.0% | #15 | 2,007 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2018 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #239 | 1,922 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2019 | 32–18 | 64.0% | #29 | 1,970 | 0 | 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2020 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #62 | 1,910 | 0 | 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2021 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #263 | 1,740 | 0 | 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2022 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #296 | 1,686 | 0 | 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |