H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 13:16 UTC
John Isner vs Lukas Rosol H2H: 0-2
Lukas Rosol holds a 2–0 lead over John Isner in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Lukas Rosol leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Lukas Rosol won the 2016 Geneva fourth round 5-7 7-6(5) 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.
USA
Age 41
Right-Handed
208 cm / 6'10"
H2H
0
–
2
2 main draw meetings
CZE
Age 40
Right-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 19, 2016* | Geneva | ATP 250 | R16 | Clay | Lukas Rosol | 5-7 7-6(5) 7-6(5) | John Isner | Match data |
| Aug 22, 2014* | Winston-Salem | ATP 250 | QF | Hard | Lukas Rosol | (w/o) | John Isner | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| John Isner | #660 | #8 | 3,720 | 2,053 | 467 | 293 | 61.4% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 16 |
| Lukas Rosol | #1,777 | #26 | 1,290 | 1,921 | 110 | 148 | 42.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
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 | John Isner | Lukas Rosol | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #271 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2007 | 8–5 | 61.5% | #106 | 1,656 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #182 | 1,535 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2008 | 11–19 | 36.7% | #144 | 1,608 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #148 | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2009 | 27–18 | 60.0% | #34 | 1,828 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #164 | 1,575 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2010 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #19 | 1,882 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 5–13 | 27.8% | #70 | 1,576 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2011 | 34–19 | 64.2% | #18 | 2,021 | 0 | 3 | 2012 | 17–18 | 48.6% | #73 | 1,748 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2012 | 38–18 | 67.9% | #14 | 1,965 | 0 | 5 | 2013 | 21–24 | 46.7% | #47 | 1,742 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2013 | 38–22 | 63.3% | #14 | 1,983 | 0 | 7 | 2014 | 28–26 | 51.9% | #31 | 1,798 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2014 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #19 | 1,922 | 0 | 9 | 2015 | 19–28 | 40.4% | #55 | 1,846 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 2015 | 45–23 | 66.2% | #11 | 2,026 | 0 | 10 | 2016 | 14–22 | 38.9% | #113 | 1,726 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | 2016 | 30–20 | 60.0% | #19 | 2,019 | 0 | 10 | 2017 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #203 | 1,671 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | 2017 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #17 | 1,984 | 0 | 12 | 2018 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #142 | 1,703 | 0 | 2 |
| 33 | 2018 | 32–22 | 59.3% | #10 | 1,956 | 0 | 14 | 2019 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #180 | 1,660 | 0 | 2 |
| 34 | 2019 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #19 | 1,921 | 0 | 15 | 2020 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #199 | 1,658 | 0 | 2 |
| 35 | 2020 | 10–7 | 58.8% | #25 | 1,845 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2021 | 23–11 | 67.6% | #24 | 1,933 | 0 | 16 | 2022 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #216 | 1,588 | 0 | 2 |
| 37 | 2022 | 22–16 | 57.9% | #41 | 1,891 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2023 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #172 | 1,698 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |