H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Fernando Verdasco vs Ivan Dodig H2H: 3-1
Fernando Verdasco holds a 3–1 lead over Ivan Dodig in their ATP head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Fernando Verdasco leads 2–0 on clay, while they are tied 1–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Fernando Verdasco won the 2016 Roland Garros second round 6-2 6-1 6-3.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
ESP
Age 42
Left-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H
3
–
1
4 main draw meetings
CRO
Age 41
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 26, 2016* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R64 | Clay | Fernando Verdasco | 6-2 6-1 6-3 | Ivan Dodig | Match data |
| Oct 17, 2013* | Stockholm | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Fernando Verdasco | 6-7(2) 6-1 6-4 | Ivan Dodig | Match data |
| Aug 28, 2013* | US Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Ivan Dodig | 6-3 7-5 1-6 4-6 6-3 | Fernando Verdasco | Match data |
| Apr 18, 2012* | Monte Carlo Masters | Masters 1000 | R32 | Clay | Fernando Verdasco | 3-6 6-3 6-1 | Ivan Dodig | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fernando Verdasco | #893 | #7 | 3,900 | 2,125 | 549 | 441 | 55.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Ivan Dodig | #423 | #29 | 1,330 | 1,964 | 114 | 129 | 46.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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 | Fernando Verdasco | Ivan Dodig | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 2002 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #173 | 1,502 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2003 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #109 | 1,592 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 2004 | 31–25 | 55.4% | #36 | 1,732 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2005 | 34–27 | 55.7% | #32 | 1,791 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2006 | 31–25 | 55.4% | #35 | 1,726 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 23 | 2007 | 33–26 | 55.9% | #26 | 1,864 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #422 | 1,508 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2008 | 45–27 | 62.5% | #16 | 1,876 | 0 | 2 | 2009 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #180 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2009 | 51–24 | 68.0% | #9 | 2,001 | 0 | 3 | 2010 | 7–7 | 50.0% | #88 | 1,723 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2010 | 43–21 | 67.2% | #9 | 1,926 | 0 | 5 | 2011 | 26–23 | 53.1% | #36 | 1,774 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2011 | 34–24 | 58.6% | #24 | 1,930 | 0 | 5 | 2012 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #72 | 1,784 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2012 | 32–21 | 60.4% | #24 | 1,915 | 0 | 5 | 2013 | 31–23 | 57.4% | #33 | 1,916 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2013 | 27–24 | 52.9% | #30 | 1,891 | 0 | 5 | 2014 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #95 | 1,757 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2014 | 26–20 | 56.5% | #33 | 1,880 | 0 | 6 | 2015 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #87 | 1,666 | 0 | 1 |
| 31 | 2015 | 24–26 | 48.0% | #49 | 1,822 | 0 | 6 | 2016 | 7–16 | 30.4% | #147 | 1,571 | 0 | 1 |
| 32 | 2016 | 29–26 | 52.7% | #42 | 1,824 | 0 | 7 | 2017 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #336 | 1,602 | 0 | 1 |
| 33 | 2017 | 29–25 | 53.7% | #35 | 1,895 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2018 | 33–28 | 54.1% | #28 | 1,915 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2019 | 26–27 | 49.1% | #49 | 1,810 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2020 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #65 | 1,768 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 2021 | 2–8 | 20.0% | #154 | 1,627 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2022 | 5–11 | 31.2% | #124 | 1,603 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 39 | 2023 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #651 | 1,535 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |