H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Jan-Lennard Struff vs Bernard Tomic H2H: 1-2
Bernard Tomic holds a 2–1 lead over Jan-Lennard Struff in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Bernard Tomic leads 2–0 on grass, while Jan-Lennard Struff leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Jan-Lennard Struff won the 2017 Rome Masters second round 6-7(8) 6-1 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.
Germany
Age 36
Right-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
H2H
1
–
2
3 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 16, 2017* | Rome Masters | Masters 1000 | R64 | Clay | Jan-Lennard Struff | 6-7(8) 6-1 6-4 | Bernard Tomic | Match data |
| Jul 1, 2015* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R128 | Grass | Bernard Tomic | 6-3 3-6 2-6 6-2 6-3 | Jan-Lennard Struff | Match data |
| Jun 11, 2015* | Stuttgart | ATP 250 | R32 | Grass | Bernard Tomic | 6-3 7-6(5) | Jan-Lennard Struff | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan-Lennard Struff | #41 | #21 | 1,628 | 2,001 | 225 | 261 | 46.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 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 | Jan-Lennard Struff | Bernard Tomic | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| 23 | 2013 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #107 | 1,585 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #26 | 1,872 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 2014 | 15–17 | 46.9% | #59 | 1,719 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 10–20 | 33.3% | #140 | 1,726 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2015 | 4–18 | 18.2% | #107 | 1,624 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 9–7 | 56.2% | #83 | 1,744 | 0 | 4 |
| 26 | 2016 | 11–17 | 39.3% | #63 | 1,792 | 0 | 0 | 2019 | 7–15 | 31.8% | #185 | 1,632 | 0 | 4 |
| 27 | 2017 | 27–28 | 49.1% | #53 | 1,855 | 0 | 0 | 2020 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #226 | 1,598 | 0 | 4 |
| 28 | 2018 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #57 | 1,857 | 0 | 0 | 2021 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #260 | 1,613 | 0 | 4 |
| 29 | 2019 | 34–27 | 55.7% | #35 | 1,884 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2020 | 11–14 | 44.0% | #36 | 1,822 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2021 | 22–26 | 45.8% | #51 | 1,762 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2022 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #150 | 1,675 | 0 | 0 | 2025 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #192 | 1,595 | 0 | 4 |
| 33 | 2023 | 20–17 | 54.1% | #25 | 1,805 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2024 | 27–20 | 57.4% | #42 | 1,868 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2025 | 14–22 | 38.9% | #83 | 1,813 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2026 | 10–12 | 45.5% | #41 | 1,827 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |