H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 13:16 UTC
Joao Sousa vs John Isner H2H: 0-1
John Isner holds a 1–0 lead over Joao Sousa in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, John Isner leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, John Isner won the 2015 Rome Masters second round 7-5 6-3.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
POR
Age 37
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 41
Right-Handed
208 cm / 6'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 12, 2015* | Rome Masters | Masters 1000 | R64 | Clay | John Isner | 7-5 6-3 | Joao Sousa | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joao Sousa | #954 | #28 | 1,355 | 1,917 | 189 | 247 | 43.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| John Isner | #660 | #8 | 3,720 | 2,053 | 467 | 293 | 61.4% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 16 |
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 | Joao Sousa | John Isner | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 19 | 2008 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #592 | 1,550 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #192 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 8–5 | 61.5% | #106 | 1,656 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2012 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #101 | 1,587 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 11–19 | 36.7% | #144 | 1,608 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2013 | 14–13 | 51.9% | #49 | 1,796 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 27–18 | 60.0% | #34 | 1,828 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2014 | 23–33 | 41.1% | #54 | 1,741 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #19 | 1,882 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2015 | 34–30 | 53.1% | #33 | 1,904 | 0 | 2 | 2011 | 34–19 | 64.2% | #18 | 2,021 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 2016 | 24–32 | 42.9% | #43 | 1,802 | 0 | 2 | 2012 | 38–18 | 67.9% | #14 | 1,965 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2017 | 22–30 | 42.3% | #57 | 1,734 | 0 | 2 | 2013 | 38–22 | 63.3% | #14 | 1,983 | 0 | 7 |
| 29 | 2018 | 25–26 | 49.0% | #44 | 1,783 | 0 | 3 | 2014 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #19 | 1,922 | 0 | 9 |
| 30 | 2019 | 25–28 | 47.2% | #60 | 1,756 | 0 | 3 | 2015 | 45–23 | 66.2% | #11 | 2,026 | 0 | 10 |
| 31 | 2020 | 0–9 | 0.0% | #90 | 1,606 | 0 | 3 | 2016 | 30–20 | 60.0% | #19 | 2,019 | 0 | 10 |
| 32 | 2021 | 1–12 | 7.7% | #140 | 1,545 | 0 | 3 | 2017 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #17 | 1,984 | 0 | 12 |
| 33 | 2022 | 13–20 | 39.4% | #82 | 1,565 | 0 | 4 | 2018 | 32–22 | 59.3% | #10 | 1,956 | 0 | 14 |
| 34 | 2023 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #249 | 1,509 | 0 | 4 | 2019 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #19 | 1,921 | 0 | 15 |
| 35 | 2024 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #726 | 1,503 | 0 | 4 | 2020 | 10–7 | 58.8% | #25 | 1,845 | 0 | 15 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2021 | 23–11 | 67.6% | #24 | 1,933 | 0 | 16 |
| 37 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 22–16 | 57.9% | #41 | 1,891 | 0 | 16 |
| 38 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #172 | 1,698 | 0 | 16 |