H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 07:16 UTC
Marin Cilic vs Juan Monaco H2H: 1-2
Juan Monaco holds a 2–1 lead over Marin Cilic in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while Juan Monaco leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Marin Cilic won the 2016 Tokyo quarterfinal 7-5 6-1.
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
–
2
3 main draw meetings
ARG
Age 42
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 8, 2016* | Tokyo | ATP 500 | QF | Hard | Marin Cilic | 7-5 6-1 | Juan Monaco | Match data |
| Mar 15, 2015* | Indian Wells Masters | Masters 1000 | R64 | Hard | Juan Monaco | 6-4 6-4 | Marin Cilic | Match data |
| May 1, 2009* | Rome Masters | Masters 1000 | R16 | Clay | Juan Monaco | 6-4 6-4 | Marin Cilic | 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 |
| Juan Monaco | #226 | #10 | 2,775 | 2,046 | 319 | 256 | 55.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 8 |
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 | Juan Monaco | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2004 | 16–12 | 57.1% | #73 | 1,661 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2010 | 38–21 | 64.4% | #14 | 1,854 | 0 | 5 | 2005 | 18–25 | 41.9% | #85 | 1,587 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2011 | 40–23 | 63.5% | #21 | 1,963 | 0 | 6 | 2006 | 18–23 | 43.9% | #69 | 1,641 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2012 | 37–17 | 68.5% | #15 | 2,009 | 0 | 8 | 2007 | 41–19 | 68.3% | #23 | 1,864 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 2013 | 24–13 | 64.9% | #37 | 1,964 | 0 | 9 | 2008 | 27–20 | 57.4% | #46 | 1,768 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2014 | 51–21 | 70.8% | #9 | 2,127 | 1 | 13 | 2009 | 34–24 | 58.6% | #30 | 1,850 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 2015 | 35–19 | 64.8% | #13 | 2,061 | 1 | 14 | 2010 | 28–18 | 60.9% | #26 | 1,838 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 2016 | 42–20 | 67.7% | #6 | 2,133 | 1 | 16 | 2011 | 26–24 | 52.0% | #26 | 1,932 | 0 | 3 |
| 28 | 2017 | 43–22 | 66.2% | #6 | 2,055 | 1 | 17 | 2012 | 36–17 | 67.9% | #12 | 1,944 | 0 | 7 |
| 29 | 2018 | 40–19 | 67.8% | #7 | 2,056 | 1 | 18 | 2013 | 18–21 | 46.2% | #42 | 1,809 | 0 | 7 |
| 30 | 2019 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #39 | 1,911 | 1 | 18 | 2014 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #62 | 1,856 | 0 | 7 |
| 31 | 2020 | 11–11 | 50.0% | #42 | 1,850 | 1 | 18 | 2015 | 21–19 | 52.5% | #53 | 1,811 | 0 | 7 |
| 32 | 2021 | 31–18 | 63.3% | #30 | 1,933 | 1 | 20 | 2016 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #65 | 1,864 | 0 | 8 |
| 33 | 2022 | 32–20 | 61.5% | #17 | 1,958 | 1 | 20 | 2017 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #226 | 1,805 | 0 | 8 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |