H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 07:16 UTC
Bernard Tomic vs Rajeev Ram H2H: 2-1
Bernard Tomic holds a 2–1 lead over Rajeev Ram in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Bernard Tomic leads 2–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Bernard Tomic won the 2016 Indian Wells Masters second round 6-4 7-5.
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
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
USA
Age 42
Right-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 13, 2016* | Indian Wells Masters | Masters 1000 | R64 | Hard | Bernard Tomic | 6-4 7-5 | Rajeev Ram | Match data |
| Feb 24, 2016* | Acapulco | ATP 500 | R32 | Hard | Bernard Tomic | 7-5 6-3 | Rajeev Ram | Match data |
| Feb 18, 2016* | Delray Beach | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Rajeev Ram | 7-6(3) 6-1 | 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 |
| Rajeev Ram | #1,076 | #56 | 826 | 1,747 | 57 | 94 | 37.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
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 | Rajeev Ram | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2002 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #536 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2012 | 22–25 | 46.8% | #52 | 1,763 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #437 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2013 | 21–22 | 48.8% | #51 | 1,788 | 0 | 1 | 2004 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #297 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2014 | 17–16 | 51.5% | #56 | 1,828 | 0 | 2 | 2005 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #195 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2015 | 37–27 | 57.8% | #18 | 1,913 | 0 | 3 | 2006 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #197 | 1,457 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2016 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #26 | 1,872 | 0 | 3 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #253 | 1,417 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2017 | 10–20 | 33.3% | #140 | 1,726 | 0 | 3 | 2008 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #190 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2018 | 9–7 | 56.2% | #83 | 1,744 | 0 | 4 | 2009 | 8–6 | 57.1% | #79 | 1,579 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2019 | 7–15 | 31.8% | #185 | 1,632 | 0 | 4 | 2010 | 6–18 | 25.0% | #184 | 1,590 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2020 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #226 | 1,598 | 0 | 4 | 2011 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #149 | 1,605 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2021 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #260 | 1,613 | 0 | 4 | 2012 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #132 | 1,635 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #127 | 1,646 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #139 | 1,660 | 0 | 1 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #89 | 1,654 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | 2025 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #192 | 1,595 | 0 | 4 | 2016 | 12–19 | 38.7% | #129 | 1,615 | 0 | 2 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #353 | 1,582 | 0 | 2 |