H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 19:16 UTC
John Isner vs Nicolas Almagro H2H: 2-1
John Isner holds a 2–1 lead over Nicolas Almagro in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, John Isner leads 1–0 on clay, while Nicolas Almagro leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, John Isner won the 2014 Miami Masters third 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.
USA
Age 41
Right-Handed
208 cm / 6'10"
H2H
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
ESP
Age 40
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 24, 2014* | Miami Masters | Masters 1000 | R32 | Hard | John Isner | 7-5 6-3 | Nicolas Almagro | Match data |
| Apr 14, 2013* | Houston | ATP 250 | F | Clay | John Isner | 6-3 7-5 | Nicolas Almagro | Match data |
| Jun 23, 2011* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R64 | Grass | Nicolas Almagro | 7-6(3) 7-6(5) 6-7(5) 6-3 | 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 |
| Nicolas Almagro | #846 | #9 | 2,735 | 2,076 | 385 | 272 | 58.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 11 | 13 |
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 | Nicolas Almagro | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2003 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #156 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #103 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 13–22 | 37.1% | #114 | 1,551 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 27–20 | 57.4% | #32 | 1,721 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 32–27 | 54.2% | #28 | 1,723 | 0 | 2 |
| 22 | 2007 | 8–5 | 61.5% | #106 | 1,656 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 34–16 | 68.0% | #18 | 1,794 | 0 | 4 |
| 23 | 2008 | 11–19 | 36.7% | #144 | 1,608 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 30–24 | 55.6% | #26 | 1,831 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 2009 | 27–18 | 60.0% | #34 | 1,828 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 41–23 | 64.1% | #15 | 1,885 | 0 | 7 |
| 25 | 2010 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #19 | 1,882 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 47–23 | 67.1% | #10 | 1,874 | 0 | 10 |
| 26 | 2011 | 34–19 | 64.2% | #18 | 2,021 | 0 | 3 | 2012 | 51–21 | 70.8% | #11 | 2,010 | 0 | 12 |
| 27 | 2012 | 38–18 | 67.9% | #14 | 1,965 | 0 | 5 | 2013 | 42–23 | 64.6% | #13 | 1,961 | 0 | 12 |
| 28 | 2013 | 38–22 | 63.3% | #14 | 1,983 | 0 | 7 | 2014 | 15–10 | 60.0% | #71 | 1,928 | 0 | 12 |
| 29 | 2014 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #19 | 1,922 | 0 | 9 | 2015 | 18–20 | 47.4% | #73 | 1,795 | 0 | 12 |
| 30 | 2015 | 45–23 | 66.2% | #11 | 2,026 | 0 | 10 | 2016 | 22–22 | 50.0% | #44 | 1,790 | 0 | 13 |
| 31 | 2016 | 30–20 | 60.0% | #19 | 2,019 | 0 | 10 | 2017 | 10–12 | 45.5% | #151 | 1,833 | 0 | 13 |
| 32 | 2017 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #17 | 1,984 | 0 | 12 | 2018 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #846 | 1,777 | 0 | 13 |
| 33 | 2018 | 32–22 | 59.3% | #10 | 1,956 | 0 | 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2019 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #19 | 1,921 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |