H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 07:16 UTC
Tommy Haas vs Igor Andreev H2H: 2-0
Tommy Haas holds a 2–0 lead over Igor Andreev in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Tommy Haas leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Tommy Haas won the 2012 Stuttgart third round 4-6 6-2 6-2.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
GER
Age 48
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
RUS
Age 43
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 12, 2012* | Stuttgart | ATP 250 | R32 | Clay | Tommy Haas | 4-6 6-2 6-2 | Igor Andreev | Match data |
| Jun 30, 2009* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R16 | Grass | Tommy Haas | 7-6(8) 6-4 6-4 | Igor Andreev | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tommy Haas | #616 | #2 | 3,030 | 2,103 | 533 | 330 | 61.8% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 11 | 15 |
| Igor Andreev | #1,011 | #18 | 2,490 | 1,913 | 219 | 214 | 50.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
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 | Tommy Haas | Igor Andreev | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 1996 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #170 | 1,587 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1997 | 22–17 | 56.4% | #45 | 1,721 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #88 | 1,565 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1998 | 34–26 | 56.7% | #34 | 1,840 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 25–26 | 49.0% | #50 | 1,660 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1999 | 45–23 | 66.2% | #11 | 1,859 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 37–29 | 56.1% | #26 | 1,832 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2000 | 27–20 | 57.4% | #23 | 1,777 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #91 | 1,760 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 2001 | 53–21 | 71.6% | #8 | 2,009 | 0 | 5 | 2007 | 31–26 | 54.4% | #33 | 1,769 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 2002 | 43–22 | 66.2% | #11 | 1,849 | 0 | 5 | 2008 | 38–27 | 58.5% | #19 | 1,882 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 27–30 | 47.4% | #35 | 1,693 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 2004 | 35–18 | 66.0% | #17 | 1,909 | 0 | 7 | 2010 | 17–19 | 47.2% | #79 | 1,700 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 2005 | 28–21 | 57.1% | #45 | 1,766 | 0 | 7 | 2011 | 15–24 | 38.5% | #115 | 1,688 | 0 | 3 |
| 28 | 2006 | 48–19 | 71.6% | #11 | 1,893 | 0 | 10 | 2012 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #110 | 1,684 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2007 | 36–17 | 67.9% | #12 | 1,892 | 0 | 11 | 2013 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1015 | 1,587 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2008 | 18–15 | 54.5% | #82 | 1,855 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2009 | 31–18 | 63.3% | #18 | 1,913 | 0 | 12 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2010 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #372 | 1,844 | 0 | 12 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2011 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #205 | 1,762 | 0 | 12 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2012 | 31–17 | 64.6% | #21 | 1,966 | 0 | 13 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2013 | 46–23 | 66.7% | #12 | 2,011 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2014 | 14–11 | 56.0% | #77 | 1,904 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 2015 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #470 | 1,784 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 39 | 2017 | 6–14 | 30.0% | #252 | 1,686 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |