H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 07:16 UTC
Bernard Tomic vs Ze Zhang H2H: 1-0
Bernard Tomic holds a 1–0 lead over Ze Zhang in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Bernard Tomic leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Bernard Tomic won the 2013 Beijing third round 7-6(4) 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
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
CHN
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 3, 2013* | Beijing | ATP 500 | R32 | Hard | Bernard Tomic | 7-6(4) 6-4 | Ze Zhang | 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 |
| Ze Zhang | #1,385 | #148 | 374 | 1,586 | 5 | 23 | 17.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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.
| Bernard Tomic | Ze Zhang | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2009 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #286 | 1,526 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #315 | 1,473 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #208 | 1,591 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #292 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 | 14–14 | 50.0% | #42 | 1,790 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #158 | 1,571 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 22–25 | 46.8% | #52 | 1,763 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #254 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 21–22 | 48.8% | #51 | 1,788 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #185 | 1,550 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 17–16 | 51.5% | #56 | 1,828 | 0 | 2 | 2015 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #189 | 1,540 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 37–27 | 57.8% | #18 | 1,913 | 0 | 3 | 2016 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #201 | 1,508 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #26 | 1,872 | 0 | 3 | 2017 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #192 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 |
| 2017 | 10–20 | 33.3% | #140 | 1,726 | 0 | 3 | 2018 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #208 | 1,478 | 0 | 0 |
| 2018 | 9–7 | 56.2% | #83 | 1,744 | 0 | 4 | 2019 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #356 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 2019 | 7–15 | 31.8% | #185 | 1,632 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2020 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #226 | 1,598 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2021 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #260 | 1,613 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2025 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #192 | 1,595 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |