H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Marin Cilic vs John Isner H2H: 8-3
Marin Cilic holds a 8–3 lead over John Isner in their ATP head-to-head. Across 11 main-draw meetings, Marin Cilic leads 5–2 on hard courts, while they are tied 1–1 on clay. Most recently, Marin Cilic won the 2019 US Open third round 7-5 3-6 7-6(6) 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.
Croatia
Age 37
Right-Handed
198 cm / 6'6"
H2H
8
–
3
11 main draw meetings
USA
Age 41
Right-Handed
208 cm / 6'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 1, 2019* | US Open | Grand Slam | R32 | Hard | Marin Cilic | 7-5 3-6 7-6(6) 6-4 | John Isner | Match data |
| Nov 12, 2018 | Tour Finals | ATP Finals | RR | Hard | Marin Cilic | 6-7(2) 6-3 6-4 | John Isner | Match data |
| Mar 28, 2018* | Miami Masters | Masters 1000 | R16 | Hard | John Isner | 7-6(0) 6-3 | Marin Cilic | Match data |
| Jun 22, 2017* | Queen's Club | ATP 250 | R32 | Grass | Marin Cilic | 7-5 6-3 | John Isner | Match data |
| May 20, 2017* | Rome Masters | Masters 1000 | QF | Clay | John Isner | 7-6(3) 2-6 7-6(2) | Marin Cilic | Match data |
| Nov 5, 2016* | Paris Masters | Masters 1000 | SF | Hard | John Isner | 6-4 6-3 | Marin Cilic | Match data |
| Jul 5, 2015* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R32 | Grass | Marin Cilic | 7-6(4) 6-7(6) 6-4 6-7(4) 12-10 | John Isner | Match data |
| Feb 22, 2014* | Delray Beach | ATP 250 | SF | Hard | Marin Cilic | 7-6(5) 6-3 | John Isner | Match data |
| Mar 25, 2013* | Miami Masters | Masters 1000 | R32 | Hard | Marin Cilic | 6-3 7-6(3) | John Isner | Match data |
| May 9, 2012* | Madrid Masters | Masters 1000 | R32 | Clay | Marin Cilic | 7-6(4) 7-6(3) | John Isner | Match data |
| Jan 23, 2011* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R32 | Hard | Marin Cilic | 4-6 6-2 6-7(5) 7-6(2) 9-7 | John Isner | 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 |
| John Isner | #660 | #8 | 3,720 | 2,053 | 467 | 293 | 61.4% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 16 |
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 | John Isner | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 2009 | 45–20 | 69.2% | #14 | 1,989 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2010 | 38–21 | 64.4% | #14 | 1,854 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2011 | 40–23 | 63.5% | #21 | 1,963 | 0 | 6 | 2007 | 8–5 | 61.5% | #106 | 1,656 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2012 | 37–17 | 68.5% | #15 | 2,009 | 0 | 8 | 2008 | 11–19 | 36.7% | #144 | 1,608 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2013 | 24–13 | 64.9% | #37 | 1,964 | 0 | 9 | 2009 | 27–18 | 60.0% | #34 | 1,828 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2014 | 51–21 | 70.8% | #9 | 2,127 | 1 | 13 | 2010 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #19 | 1,882 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2015 | 35–19 | 64.8% | #13 | 2,061 | 1 | 14 | 2011 | 34–19 | 64.2% | #18 | 2,021 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 2016 | 42–20 | 67.7% | #6 | 2,133 | 1 | 16 | 2012 | 38–18 | 67.9% | #14 | 1,965 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2017 | 43–22 | 66.2% | #6 | 2,055 | 1 | 17 | 2013 | 38–22 | 63.3% | #14 | 1,983 | 0 | 7 |
| 29 | 2018 | 40–19 | 67.8% | #7 | 2,056 | 1 | 18 | 2014 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #19 | 1,922 | 0 | 9 |
| 30 | 2019 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #39 | 1,911 | 1 | 18 | 2015 | 45–23 | 66.2% | #11 | 2,026 | 0 | 10 |
| 31 | 2020 | 11–11 | 50.0% | #42 | 1,850 | 1 | 18 | 2016 | 30–20 | 60.0% | #19 | 2,019 | 0 | 10 |
| 32 | 2021 | 31–18 | 63.3% | #30 | 1,933 | 1 | 20 | 2017 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #17 | 1,984 | 0 | 12 |
| 33 | 2022 | 32–20 | 61.5% | #17 | 1,958 | 1 | 20 | 2018 | 32–22 | 59.3% | #10 | 1,956 | 0 | 14 |
| 34 | 2023 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #672 | 1,912 | 1 | 20 | 2019 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #19 | 1,921 | 0 | 15 |
| 35 | 2024 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #179 | 1,816 | 1 | 21 | 2020 | 10–7 | 58.8% | #25 | 1,845 | 0 | 15 |
| 36 | 2025 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #73 | 1,819 | 1 | 21 | 2021 | 23–11 | 67.6% | #24 | 1,933 | 0 | 16 |
| 37 | 2026 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #88 | 1,758 | 1 | 21 | 2022 | 22–16 | 57.9% | #41 | 1,891 | 0 | 16 |
| 38 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #172 | 1,698 | 0 | 16 |