H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 19:16 UTC
Michal Przysiezny vs Rik De Voest H2H: 0-1
Rik De Voest holds a 1–0 lead over Michal Przysiezny in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Rik De Voest leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Rik De Voest won the 2011 Johannesburg fourth round 6-3 6-4.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
POL
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
RSA
Age 46
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 9, 2011 | Shanghai Masters | Masters 1000 | Q1 | Hard | Rik De Voest | 6-2 6-2 | Michal Przysiezny | Match data |
| Feb 4, 2011* | Johannesburg | ATP 250 | R16 | Hard | Rik De Voest | 6-3 6-4 | Michal Przysiezny | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michal Przysiezny | #1,345 | #57 | 810 | 1,784 | 19 | 58 | 24.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rik De Voest | #1,088 | #110 | 538 | 1,693 | 19 | 38 | 33.3% | 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.
| Michal Przysiezny | Rik De Voest | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2004 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #339 | 1,478 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #241 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 |
| 2006 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #257 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #207 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 2007 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #256 | 1,540 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #135 | 1,450 | 0 | 0 |
| 2008 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #609 | 1,514 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #120 | 1,580 | 0 | 0 |
| 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #183 | 1,516 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #159 | 1,651 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 1–12 | 7.7% | #86 | 1,438 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #236 | 1,575 | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #306 | 1,444 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #181 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #66 | 1,776 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #126 | 1,666 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 4–17 | 19.0% | #174 | 1,669 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #258 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #193 | 1,671 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #171 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #428 | 1,658 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |