H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 07:16 UTC
Jordan Thompson vs Martin Klizan H2H: 1-0
Jordan Thompson holds a 1–0 lead over Martin Klizan in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Jordan Thompson leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Jordan Thompson won the 2016 Sydney third round 6-2 4-0 RET.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
Australia
Age 32
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
Slovakia
Age 37
Left-Handed
191 cm / 6'3"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 14, 2016* | Sydney | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Jordan Thompson | 6-2 4-0 (ret.) | Martin Klizan | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jordan Thompson | #309 | #26 | 1,745 | 1,944 | 150 | 172 | 46.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Martin Klizan | #831 | #24 | 1,445 | 1,979 | 128 | 146 | 46.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 |
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 | Jordan Thompson | Martin Klizan | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #395 | 1,524 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #234 | 1,542 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2014 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #276 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #155 | 1,607 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #154 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #117 | 1,600 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2016 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #79 | 1,500 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #30 | 1,795 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2017 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #94 | 1,676 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 12–24 | 33.3% | #108 | 1,690 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2018 | 1–10 | 9.1% | #72 | 1,551 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 23–16 | 59.0% | #34 | 1,899 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 2019 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #63 | 1,765 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 24–27 | 47.1% | #43 | 1,794 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 2020 | 10–12 | 45.5% | #51 | 1,756 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 14–15 | 48.3% | #35 | 1,750 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | 2021 | 21–21 | 50.0% | #75 | 1,691 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #141 | 1,755 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2022 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #84 | 1,689 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 18–9 | 66.7% | #41 | 1,917 | 0 | 6 |
| 29 | 2023 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #55 | 1,759 | 0 | 0 | 2019 | 9–18 | 33.3% | #141 | 1,703 | 0 | 6 |
| 30 | 2024 | 36–24 | 60.0% | #26 | 1,916 | 0 | 1 | 2020 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #151 | 1,649 | 0 | 6 |
| 31 | 2025 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #108 | 1,795 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2026 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #309 | 1,787 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2025 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #835 | 1,556 | 0 | 6 |