H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Mikhail Youzhny vs Thomas Johansson H2H: 2-1
Mikhail Youzhny holds a 2–1 lead over Thomas Johansson in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on carpet, while Mikhail Youzhny leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Thomas Johansson won the 2006 St. Petersburg fourth round W/O.
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
–
1
3 main draw meetings
SWE
Age 51
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 27, 2006* | St. Petersburg | ATP 250 | R16 | Carpet | Thomas Johansson | (w/o) | Mikhail Youzhny | Match data |
| Feb 24, 2005* | Dubai | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Mikhail Youzhny | 7-6(3) 6-1 | Thomas Johansson | Match data |
| Oct 27, 2000* | Moscow | ATP 250 | R16 | Carpet | Mikhail Youzhny | 4-6 6-2 7-6(5) | Thomas Johansson | 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 |
| Thomas Johansson | #586 | #7 | 2,365 | 1,969 | 336 | 277 | 54.8% | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 9 |
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 | Thomas Johansson | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1993 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #422 | 1,535 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2001 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #58 | 1,694 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #486 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2002 | 30–22 | 57.7% | #32 | 1,866 | 0 | 1 | 1995 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #117 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2003 | 28–26 | 51.9% | #43 | 1,746 | 0 | 1 | 1996 | 28–21 | 57.1% | #60 | 1,763 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2004 | 38–25 | 60.3% | #16 | 1,870 | 0 | 2 | 1997 | 32–27 | 54.2% | #39 | 1,699 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2005 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #43 | 1,758 | 0 | 2 | 1998 | 46–30 | 60.5% | #17 | 1,899 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 2006 | 23–22 | 51.1% | #24 | 1,803 | 0 | 2 | 1999 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #39 | 1,725 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2007 | 48–24 | 66.7% | #19 | 1,880 | 0 | 3 | 2000 | 22–25 | 46.8% | #39 | 1,825 | 0 | 4 |
| 26 | 2008 | 24–19 | 55.8% | #32 | 1,761 | 0 | 4 | 2001 | 42–23 | 64.6% | #18 | 1,875 | 0 | 6 |
| 27 | 2009 | 41–27 | 60.3% | #19 | 1,960 | 0 | 5 | 2002 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #14 | 1,746 | 1 | 7 |
| 28 | 2010 | 40–19 | 67.8% | #10 | 1,936 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2011 | 24–22 | 52.2% | #35 | 1,837 | 0 | 7 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #30 | 1,855 | 1 | 8 |
| 30 | 2012 | 33–21 | 61.1% | #25 | 1,902 | 0 | 8 | 2005 | 42–24 | 63.6% | #13 | 1,892 | 1 | 9 |
| 31 | 2013 | 39–24 | 61.9% | #15 | 2,016 | 0 | 10 | 2006 | 11–16 | 40.7% | #71 | 1,723 | 1 | 9 |
| 32 | 2014 | 18–24 | 42.9% | #48 | 1,795 | 0 | 10 | 2007 | 23–23 | 50.0% | #62 | 1,759 | 1 | 9 |
| 33 | 2015 | 9–24 | 27.3% | #127 | 1,701 | 0 | 10 | 2008 | 11–17 | 39.3% | #136 | 1,673 | 1 | 9 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |