H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 07:16 UTC
Tennys Sandgren vs John Isner H2H: 0-2
John Isner holds a 2–0 lead over Tennys Sandgren in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, John Isner leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, John Isner won the 2020 Auckland fourth round 7-6(3) 6-7(1) 6-3.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
USA
Age 34
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H
0
–
2
2 main draw meetings
USA
Age 41
Right-Handed
208 cm / 6'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 16, 2020* | Auckland | ATP 250 | R16 | Hard | John Isner | 7-6(3) 6-7(1) 6-3 | Tennys Sandgren | Match data |
| Oct 20, 2018* | Stockholm | ATP 250 | QF | Hard | John Isner | 7-6(8) 6-7(5) 7-6(2) | Tennys Sandgren | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tennys Sandgren | #1,243 | #41 | 1,091 | 1,870 | 47 | 75 | 38.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| John Isner | #660 | #8 | 3,720 | 2,053 | 467 | 293 | 61.4% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 16 |
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 | Tennys Sandgren | John Isner | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 8–5 | 61.5% | #106 | 1,656 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 11–19 | 36.7% | #144 | 1,608 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 27–18 | 60.0% | #34 | 1,828 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2017 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #96 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #19 | 1,882 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2018 | 16–20 | 44.4% | #61 | 1,662 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 34–19 | 64.2% | #18 | 2,021 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 2019 | 13–17 | 43.3% | #68 | 1,761 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 38–18 | 67.9% | #14 | 1,965 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2020 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #49 | 1,757 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 38–22 | 63.3% | #14 | 1,983 | 0 | 7 |
| 29 | 2021 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #96 | 1,689 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #19 | 1,922 | 0 | 9 |
| 30 | 2022 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #265 | 1,675 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 45–23 | 66.2% | #11 | 2,026 | 0 | 10 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2016 | 30–20 | 60.0% | #19 | 2,019 | 0 | 10 |
| 32 | 2024 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #506 | 1,646 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #17 | 1,984 | 0 | 12 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2018 | 32–22 | 59.3% | #10 | 1,956 | 0 | 14 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2019 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #19 | 1,921 | 0 | 15 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2020 | 10–7 | 58.8% | #25 | 1,845 | 0 | 15 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2021 | 23–11 | 67.6% | #24 | 1,933 | 0 | 16 |
| 37 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 22–16 | 57.9% | #41 | 1,891 | 0 | 16 |
| 38 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #172 | 1,698 | 0 | 16 |