H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 13:16 UTC
John Isner vs Ivan Dodig H2H: 2-1
John Isner holds a 2–1 lead over Ivan Dodig in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, John Isner leads 2–1 on hard courts. Most recently, John Isner won the 2015 Memphis fourth round 6-4 7-6(5).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
USA
Age 41
Right-Handed
208 cm / 6'10"
H2H
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
CRO
Age 41
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 13, 2015* | Memphis | ATP 250 | R16 | Hard | John Isner | 6-4 7-6(5) | Ivan Dodig | Match data |
| Aug 6, 2014* | Canada Masters | Masters 1000 | R64 | Hard | Ivan Dodig | 6-4 6-7(4) 6-3 | John Isner | Match data |
| Mar 23, 2013* | Miami Masters | Masters 1000 | R64 | Hard | John Isner | 4-6 7-5 7-6(5) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| John Isner | #660 | #8 | 3,720 | 2,053 | 467 | 293 | 61.4% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 16 |
| 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 | John Isner | Ivan Dodig | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 22 | 2007 | 8–5 | 61.5% | #106 | 1,656 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 23 | 2008 | 11–19 | 36.7% | #144 | 1,608 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #422 | 1,508 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2009 | 27–18 | 60.0% | #34 | 1,828 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #180 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2010 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #19 | 1,882 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 7–7 | 50.0% | #88 | 1,723 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2011 | 34–19 | 64.2% | #18 | 2,021 | 0 | 3 | 2011 | 26–23 | 53.1% | #36 | 1,774 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2012 | 38–18 | 67.9% | #14 | 1,965 | 0 | 5 | 2012 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #72 | 1,784 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2013 | 38–22 | 63.3% | #14 | 1,983 | 0 | 7 | 2013 | 31–23 | 57.4% | #33 | 1,916 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2014 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #19 | 1,922 | 0 | 9 | 2014 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #95 | 1,757 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2015 | 45–23 | 66.2% | #11 | 2,026 | 0 | 10 | 2015 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #87 | 1,666 | 0 | 1 |
| 31 | 2016 | 30–20 | 60.0% | #19 | 2,019 | 0 | 10 | 2016 | 7–16 | 30.4% | #147 | 1,571 | 0 | 1 |
| 32 | 2017 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #17 | 1,984 | 0 | 12 | 2017 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #336 | 1,602 | 0 | 1 |
| 33 | 2018 | 32–22 | 59.3% | #10 | 1,956 | 0 | 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2019 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #19 | 1,921 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2020 | 10–7 | 58.8% | #25 | 1,845 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2021 | 23–11 | 67.6% | #24 | 1,933 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 2022 | 22–16 | 57.9% | #41 | 1,891 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2023 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #172 | 1,698 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |