H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 19:16 UTC
Marin Cilic vs Evgeny Korolev H2H: 1-0
Marin Cilic holds a 1–0 lead over Evgeny Korolev in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Marin Cilic leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Marin Cilic won the 2006 Umag third round 6-7(5) 6-4 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.
Croatia
Age 37
Right-Handed
198 cm / 6'6"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
KAZ
Age 38
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 28, 2006 | US Open | Grand Slam | Q1 | Hard | Evgeny Korolev | 7-6(4) 6-1 | Marin Cilic | Match data |
| Jul 27, 2006* | Umag | ATP 250 | R32 | Clay | Marin Cilic | 6-7(5) 6-4 6-3 | Evgeny Korolev | 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 |
| Evgeny Korolev | #1,762 | #46 | 1,012 | 1,791 | 72 | 91 | 44.2% | 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 | Evgeny Korolev | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2006 | 8–8 | 50.0% | #103 | 1,612 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2008 | 36–23 | 61.0% | #23 | 1,904 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 20–24 | 45.5% | #80 | 1,680 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2009 | 45–20 | 69.2% | #14 | 1,989 | 0 | 3 | 2008 | 13–17 | 43.3% | #106 | 1,677 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2010 | 38–21 | 64.4% | #14 | 1,854 | 0 | 5 | 2009 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #53 | 1,728 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2011 | 40–23 | 63.5% | #21 | 1,963 | 0 | 6 | 2010 | 12–20 | 37.5% | #140 | 1,665 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2012 | 37–17 | 68.5% | #15 | 2,009 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 2013 | 24–13 | 64.9% | #37 | 1,964 | 0 | 9 | 2012 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #211 | 1,624 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2014 | 51–21 | 70.8% | #9 | 2,127 | 1 | 13 | 2013 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #329 | 1,596 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2015 | 35–19 | 64.8% | #13 | 2,061 | 1 | 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2016 | 42–20 | 67.7% | #6 | 2,133 | 1 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2017 | 43–22 | 66.2% | #6 | 2,055 | 1 | 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2018 | 40–19 | 67.8% | #7 | 2,056 | 1 | 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2019 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #39 | 1,911 | 1 | 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2020 | 11–11 | 50.0% | #42 | 1,850 | 1 | 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |