H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 07:16 UTC
Bernard Tomic vs John Isner H2H: 0-2
John Isner holds a 2–0 lead over Bernard Tomic 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 2019 New York fourth round 7-6(7) 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.
Australia
Age 33
Right-Handed
196 cm / 6'5"
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 15, 2019* | New York | ATP 250 | R16 | Hard | John Isner | 7-6(7) 6-4 | Bernard Tomic | Match data |
| Mar 3, 2012* | Delray Beach | ATP 250 | QF | Hard | John Isner | 6-3 6-2 | Bernard Tomic | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bernard Tomic | #206 | #17 | 1,885 | 1,968 | 170 | 182 | 48.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| 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 | Bernard Tomic | John Isner | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2009 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #286 | 1,526 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2010 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #208 | 1,591 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2011 | 14–14 | 50.0% | #42 | 1,790 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2012 | 22–25 | 46.8% | #52 | 1,763 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 2013 | 21–22 | 48.8% | #51 | 1,788 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2014 | 17–16 | 51.5% | #56 | 1,828 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2015 | 37–27 | 57.8% | #18 | 1,913 | 0 | 3 | 2007 | 8–5 | 61.5% | #106 | 1,656 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2016 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #26 | 1,872 | 0 | 3 | 2008 | 11–19 | 36.7% | #144 | 1,608 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2017 | 10–20 | 33.3% | #140 | 1,726 | 0 | 3 | 2009 | 27–18 | 60.0% | #34 | 1,828 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2018 | 9–7 | 56.2% | #83 | 1,744 | 0 | 4 | 2010 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #19 | 1,882 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2019 | 7–15 | 31.8% | #185 | 1,632 | 0 | 4 | 2011 | 34–19 | 64.2% | #18 | 2,021 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 2020 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #226 | 1,598 | 0 | 4 | 2012 | 38–18 | 67.9% | #14 | 1,965 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2021 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #260 | 1,613 | 0 | 4 | 2013 | 38–22 | 63.3% | #14 | 1,983 | 0 | 7 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #19 | 1,922 | 0 | 9 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 45–23 | 66.2% | #11 | 2,026 | 0 | 10 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2016 | 30–20 | 60.0% | #19 | 2,019 | 0 | 10 |
| 32 | 2025 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #192 | 1,595 | 0 | 4 | 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 |