H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 19:16 UTC
John Isner vs Thiemo de Bakker H2H: 1-1
John Isner and Thiemo de Bakker are tied 1–1 in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Thiemo de Bakker leads 1–0 on grass, while John Isner leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, John Isner won the 2010 Washington third round 7-6(6) 7-6(8).
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
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
NED
Age 37
Right-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 4, 2010* | Washington | ATP 500 | R32 | Hard | John Isner | 7-6(6) 7-6(8) | Thiemo de Bakker | Match data |
| Jun 24, 2010* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R64 | Grass | Thiemo de Bakker | 6-0 6-3 6-2 | 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 |
| Thiemo de Bakker | #1,382 | #40 | 1,010 | 1,853 | 54 | 80 | 40.3% | 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 | John Isner | Thiemo de Bakker | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #464 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #444 | 1,502 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #249 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #96 | 1,610 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 26–23 | 53.1% | #43 | 1,762 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2007 | 8–5 | 61.5% | #106 | 1,656 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 2–11 | 15.4% | #223 | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2008 | 11–19 | 36.7% | #144 | 1,608 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #124 | 1,641 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2009 | 27–18 | 60.0% | #34 | 1,828 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #146 | 1,682 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2010 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #19 | 1,882 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #144 | 1,680 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2011 | 34–19 | 64.2% | #18 | 2,021 | 0 | 3 | 2015 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #99 | 1,621 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2012 | 38–18 | 67.9% | #14 | 1,965 | 0 | 5 | 2016 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #257 | 1,583 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2013 | 38–22 | 63.3% | #14 | 1,983 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2014 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #19 | 1,922 | 0 | 9 | 2018 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #242 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2015 | 45–23 | 66.2% | #11 | 2,026 | 0 | 10 | 2019 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #511 | 1,537 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2016 | 30–20 | 60.0% | #19 | 2,019 | 0 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2017 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #17 | 1,984 | 0 | 12 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |