H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 07:16 UTC
Mikhail Youzhny vs Danai Udomchoke H2H: 1-0
Mikhail Youzhny holds a 1–0 lead over Danai Udomchoke in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Mikhail Youzhny leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Mikhail Youzhny won the 2005 Beijing fourth round 7-5 6-1.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
RUS
Age 44
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
THA
Age 44
Right-Handed
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 16, 2005* | Beijing | ATP 250 | R16 | Hard | Mikhail Youzhny | 7-5 6-1 | Danai Udomchoke | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mikhail Youzhny | #115 | #8 | 3,500 | 2,069 | 477 | 405 | 54.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 10 |
| Danai Udomchoke | #1,207 | #77 | 646 | 1,631 | 18 | 52 | 25.7% | 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 | Mikhail Youzhny | Danai Udomchoke | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 1999 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #286 | 1,493 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2000 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #113 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2001 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #58 | 1,694 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #283 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2002 | 30–22 | 57.7% | #32 | 1,866 | 0 | 1 | 2002 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #211 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2003 | 28–26 | 51.9% | #43 | 1,746 | 0 | 1 | 2003 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #162 | 1,437 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2004 | 38–25 | 60.3% | #16 | 1,870 | 0 | 2 | 2004 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #204 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2005 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #43 | 1,758 | 0 | 2 | 2005 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #121 | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2006 | 23–22 | 51.1% | #24 | 1,803 | 0 | 2 | 2006 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #104 | 1,564 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2007 | 48–24 | 66.7% | #19 | 1,880 | 0 | 3 | 2007 | 7–19 | 26.9% | #154 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2008 | 24–19 | 55.8% | #32 | 1,761 | 0 | 4 | 2008 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #152 | 1,525 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2009 | 41–27 | 60.3% | #19 | 1,960 | 0 | 5 | 2009 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #162 | 1,501 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2010 | 40–19 | 67.8% | #10 | 1,936 | 0 | 7 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #457 | 1,480 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2011 | 24–22 | 52.2% | #35 | 1,837 | 0 | 7 | 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #210 | 1,508 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2012 | 33–21 | 61.1% | #25 | 1,902 | 0 | 8 | 2012 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #149 | 1,524 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2013 | 39–24 | 61.9% | #15 | 2,016 | 0 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2014 | 18–24 | 42.9% | #48 | 1,795 | 0 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2015 | 9–24 | 27.3% | #127 | 1,701 | 0 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2016 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #57 | 1,774 | 0 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2017 | 10–20 | 33.3% | #84 | 1,679 | 0 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2018 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #115 | 1,637 | 0 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |