H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Mikhail Youzhny vs Michal Przysiezny H2H: 2-0
Mikhail Youzhny holds a 2–0 lead over Michal Przysiezny in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Mikhail Youzhny leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Mikhail Youzhny won the 2014 Dubai third 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.
RUS
Age 44
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
POL
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 26, 2014* | Dubai | ATP 500 | R32 | Hard | Mikhail Youzhny | 6-3 6-4 | Michal Przysiezny | Match data |
| May 26, 2010* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R128 | Clay | Mikhail Youzhny | 6-1 6-0 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mikhail Youzhny | #115 | #8 | 3,500 | 2,069 | 477 | 405 | 54.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 10 |
| Michal Przysiezny | #1,345 | #57 | 810 | 1,784 | 19 | 58 | 24.7% | 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.
| Mikhail Youzhny | Michal Przysiezny | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 1999 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #286 | 1,493 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #339 | 1,478 | 0 | 0 |
| 2000 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #113 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #257 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 |
| 2001 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #58 | 1,694 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #256 | 1,540 | 0 | 0 |
| 2002 | 30–22 | 57.7% | #32 | 1,866 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #609 | 1,514 | 0 | 0 |
| 2003 | 28–26 | 51.9% | #43 | 1,746 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #183 | 1,516 | 0 | 0 |
| 2004 | 38–25 | 60.3% | #16 | 1,870 | 0 | 2 | 2010 | 1–12 | 7.7% | #86 | 1,438 | 0 | 0 |
| 2005 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #43 | 1,758 | 0 | 2 | 2011 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #306 | 1,444 | 0 | 0 |
| 2006 | 23–22 | 51.1% | #24 | 1,803 | 0 | 2 | 2013 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #66 | 1,776 | 0 | 0 |
| 2007 | 48–24 | 66.7% | #19 | 1,880 | 0 | 3 | 2014 | 4–17 | 19.0% | #174 | 1,669 | 0 | 0 |
| 2008 | 24–19 | 55.8% | #32 | 1,761 | 0 | 4 | 2015 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #193 | 1,671 | 0 | 0 |
| 2009 | 41–27 | 60.3% | #19 | 1,960 | 0 | 5 | 2016 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #428 | 1,658 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 40–19 | 67.8% | #10 | 1,936 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2011 | 24–22 | 52.2% | #35 | 1,837 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2012 | 33–21 | 61.1% | #25 | 1,902 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2013 | 39–24 | 61.9% | #15 | 2,016 | 0 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2014 | 18–24 | 42.9% | #48 | 1,795 | 0 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2015 | 9–24 | 27.3% | #127 | 1,701 | 0 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2016 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #57 | 1,774 | 0 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2017 | 10–20 | 33.3% | #84 | 1,679 | 0 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2018 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #115 | 1,637 | 0 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |