H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 07:16 UTC
Marin Cilic vs Daniel Brands H2H: 3-0
Marin Cilic holds a 3–0 lead over Daniel Brands in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Marin Cilic leads 2–0 on hard courts and 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Marin Cilic won the 2012 US Open second round 6-3 6-2 5-7 4-6 7-5.
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 37
Right-Handed
198 cm / 6'6"
H2H
3
–
0
3 main draw meetings
GER
Age 39
Right-Handed
196 cm / 6'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 30, 2012* | US Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Marin Cilic | 6-3 6-2 5-7 4-6 7-5 | Daniel Brands | Match data |
| Jul 13, 2012* | Umag | ATP 250 | R16 | Clay | Marin Cilic | 6-3 6-2 | Daniel Brands | Match data |
| Oct 30, 2009* | Vienna | ATP 500 | R16 | Hard | Marin Cilic | 7-6(7) 6-4 | Daniel Brands | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marin Cilic | #88 | #3 | 5,155 | 2,195 | 572 | 344 | 62.4% | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 17 | 21 |
| Daniel Brands | #1,055 | #51 | 896 | 1,886 | 57 | 92 | 38.3% | 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.
| Age | Marin Cilic | Daniel Brands | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2005 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #587 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2006 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #170 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2007 | 12–12 | 50.0% | #71 | 1,714 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2008 | 36–23 | 61.0% | #23 | 1,904 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #220 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2009 | 45–20 | 69.2% | #14 | 1,989 | 0 | 3 | 2008 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #150 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2010 | 38–21 | 64.4% | #14 | 1,854 | 0 | 5 | 2009 | 7–5 | 58.3% | #92 | 1,645 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2011 | 40–23 | 63.5% | #21 | 1,963 | 0 | 6 | 2010 | 9–19 | 32.1% | #104 | 1,670 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2012 | 37–17 | 68.5% | #15 | 2,009 | 0 | 8 | 2011 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #110 | 1,690 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2013 | 24–13 | 64.9% | #37 | 1,964 | 0 | 9 | 2012 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #153 | 1,689 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2014 | 51–21 | 70.8% | #9 | 2,127 | 1 | 13 | 2013 | 22–22 | 50.0% | #54 | 1,815 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2015 | 35–19 | 64.8% | #13 | 2,061 | 1 | 14 | 2014 | 2–11 | 15.4% | #329 | 1,713 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2016 | 42–20 | 67.7% | #6 | 2,133 | 1 | 16 | 2015 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #159 | 1,729 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2017 | 43–22 | 66.2% | #6 | 2,055 | 1 | 17 | 2016 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #168 | 1,660 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2018 | 40–19 | 67.8% | #7 | 2,056 | 1 | 18 | 2017 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #320 | 1,662 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2019 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #39 | 1,911 | 1 | 18 | 2018 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #182 | 1,615 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2020 | 11–11 | 50.0% | #42 | 1,850 | 1 | 18 | 2019 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #465 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | 2021 | 31–18 | 63.3% | #30 | 1,933 | 1 | 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2022 | 32–20 | 61.5% | #17 | 1,958 | 1 | 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2023 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #672 | 1,912 | 1 | 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2024 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #179 | 1,816 | 1 | 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2025 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #73 | 1,819 | 1 | 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 2026 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #88 | 1,758 | 1 | 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |