H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 14:16 UTC
Borna Coric vs Bernard Tomic H2H: 1-1
Borna Coric and Bernard Tomic are tied 1–1 in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Borna Coric leads 1–0 on clay, while Bernard Tomic leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Borna Coric won the 2016 Roland Garros second round 3-6 6-2 7-6(4) 7-6(6).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
Croatia
Age 29
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
Australia
Age 33
Right-Handed
196 cm / 6'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 26, 2016* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R64 | Clay | Borna Coric | 3-6 6-2 7-6(4) 7-6(6) | Bernard Tomic | Match data |
| Mar 15, 2015* | Indian Wells Masters | Masters 1000 | R64 | Hard | Bernard Tomic | 6-3 6-4 | Borna Coric | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Borna Coric | #237 | #12 | 2,695 | 2,047 | 200 | 187 | 51.7% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Bernard Tomic | #206 | #17 | 1,885 | 1,968 | 170 | 182 | 48.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
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 | Borna Coric | Bernard Tomic | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2013 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #303 | 1,495 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #286 | 1,526 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2014 | 6–5 | 54.5% | #102 | 1,647 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #208 | 1,591 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2015 | 24–27 | 47.1% | #44 | 1,824 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 14–14 | 50.0% | #42 | 1,790 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2016 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #48 | 1,866 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 22–25 | 46.8% | #52 | 1,763 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2017 | 21–25 | 45.7% | #48 | 1,803 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 21–22 | 48.8% | #51 | 1,788 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2018 | 35–19 | 64.8% | #12 | 2,014 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 17–16 | 51.5% | #56 | 1,828 | 0 | 2 |
| 22 | 2019 | 27–22 | 55.1% | #28 | 1,814 | 0 | 2 | 2015 | 37–27 | 57.8% | #18 | 1,913 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 2020 | 15–10 | 60.0% | #24 | 1,883 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #26 | 1,872 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 2021 | 6–3 | 66.7% | #73 | 1,891 | 0 | 2 | 2017 | 10–20 | 33.3% | #140 | 1,726 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2022 | 16–12 | 57.1% | #26 | 1,931 | 0 | 3 | 2018 | 9–7 | 56.2% | #83 | 1,744 | 0 | 4 |
| 26 | 2023 | 18–18 | 50.0% | #37 | 1,789 | 0 | 3 | 2019 | 7–15 | 31.8% | #185 | 1,632 | 0 | 4 |
| 27 | 2024 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #90 | 1,650 | 0 | 3 | 2020 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #226 | 1,598 | 0 | 4 |
| 28 | 2025 | 0–7 | 0.0% | #115 | 1,574 | 0 | 3 | 2021 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #260 | 1,613 | 0 | 4 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2025 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #192 | 1,595 | 0 | 4 |