H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 07:16 UTC
Marin Cilic vs Kei Nishikori H2H: 6-10
Kei Nishikori holds a 10–6 lead over Marin Cilic in their ATP head-to-head. Across 16 main-draw meetings, Kei Nishikori leads 8–5 on hard courts and 2–0 on clay. Most recently, Kei Nishikori won the 2024 Tokyo third round 6-4 3-6 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
6
–
10
16 main draw meetings
Japan
Age 36
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 28, 2024* | Tokyo | ATP 500 | R32 | Hard | Kei Nishikori | 6-4 3-6 6-3 | Marin Cilic | Match data |
| Sep 6, 2018* | US Open | Grand Slam | QF | Hard | Kei Nishikori | 2-6 6-4 7-6(5) 4-6 6-4 | Marin Cilic | Match data |
| Apr 21, 2018* | Monte Carlo Masters | Masters 1000 | QF | Clay | Kei Nishikori | 6-4 6-7(1) 6-3 | Marin Cilic | Match data |
| Nov 14, 2016 | Tour Finals | ATP Finals | RR | Hard | Marin Cilic | 3-6 6-2 6-3 | Kei Nishikori | Match data |
| Oct 30, 2016* | Basel | ATP 500 | F | Hard | Marin Cilic | 6-1 7-6(5) | Kei Nishikori | Match data |
| Jul 5, 2016* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R16 | Grass | Marin Cilic | 6-1 5-1 (ret.) | Kei Nishikori | Match data |
| Oct 10, 2015* | Tokyo | ATP 500 | QF | Hard | Kei Nishikori | 3-6 7-5 6-3 | Marin Cilic | Match data |
| Aug 8, 2015* | Washington | ATP 500 | SF | Hard | Kei Nishikori | 3-6 6-1 6-4 | Marin Cilic | Match data |
| Sep 8, 2014* | US Open | Grand Slam | F | Hard | Marin Cilic | 6-3 6-3 6-3 | Kei Nishikori | Match data |
| Apr 26, 2014* | Barcelona | ATP 500 | QF | Clay | Kei Nishikori | 6-1 6-3 | Marin Cilic | Match data |
| Jan 4, 2014* | Brisbane | ATP 250 | QF | Hard | Kei Nishikori | 6-4 5-7 6-2 | Marin Cilic | Match data |
| Feb 23, 2013* | Memphis | ATP 250 | QF | Hard | Kei Nishikori | 6-4 6-2 | Marin Cilic | Match data |
| Sep 2, 2012* | US Open | Grand Slam | R32 | Hard | Marin Cilic | 6-3 6-4 6-7(3) 6-3 | Kei Nishikori | Match data |
| Jan 6, 2011* | Chennai | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Kei Nishikori | 4-6 7-6(0) 6-2 | Marin Cilic | Match data |
| Sep 2, 2010* | US Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Kei Nishikori | 5-7 7-6(6) 3-6 7-6(3) 6-1 | Marin Cilic | Match data |
| Mar 15, 2008* | Indian Wells Masters | Masters 1000 | R128 | Hard | Marin Cilic | 6-2 6-4 | Kei Nishikori | 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 |
| Kei Nishikori | #464 | #4 | 6,385 | 2,245 | 424 | 226 | 65.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 7 | 12 |
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 | Kei Nishikori | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2007 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #286 | 1,576 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2007 | 12–12 | 50.0% | #71 | 1,714 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 16–10 | 61.5% | #63 | 1,792 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 2008 | 36–23 | 61.0% | #23 | 1,904 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #418 | 1,743 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 2009 | 45–20 | 69.2% | #14 | 1,989 | 0 | 3 | 2010 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #98 | 1,743 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2010 | 38–21 | 64.4% | #14 | 1,854 | 0 | 5 | 2011 | 32–22 | 59.3% | #25 | 1,922 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2011 | 40–23 | 63.5% | #21 | 1,963 | 0 | 6 | 2012 | 32–17 | 65.3% | #19 | 1,971 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2012 | 37–17 | 68.5% | #15 | 2,009 | 0 | 8 | 2013 | 34–19 | 64.2% | #17 | 1,940 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 2013 | 24–13 | 64.9% | #37 | 1,964 | 0 | 9 | 2014 | 52–15 | 77.6% | #5 | 2,211 | 0 | 7 |
| 25 | 2014 | 51–21 | 70.8% | #9 | 2,127 | 1 | 13 | 2015 | 51–17 | 75.0% | #8 | 2,131 | 0 | 10 |
| 26 | 2015 | 35–19 | 64.8% | #13 | 2,061 | 1 | 14 | 2016 | 52–20 | 72.2% | #5 | 2,151 | 0 | 11 |
| 27 | 2016 | 42–20 | 67.7% | #6 | 2,133 | 1 | 16 | 2017 | 30–14 | 68.2% | #22 | 2,067 | 0 | 11 |
| 28 | 2017 | 43–22 | 66.2% | #6 | 2,055 | 1 | 17 | 2018 | 43–21 | 67.2% | #9 | 2,105 | 0 | 11 |
| 29 | 2018 | 40–19 | 67.8% | #7 | 2,056 | 1 | 18 | 2019 | 29–14 | 67.4% | #13 | 2,001 | 0 | 12 |
| 30 | 2019 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #39 | 1,911 | 1 | 18 | 2020 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #41 | 1,911 | 0 | 12 |
| 31 | 2020 | 11–11 | 50.0% | #42 | 1,850 | 1 | 18 | 2021 | 24–15 | 61.5% | #47 | 1,945 | 0 | 12 |
| 32 | 2021 | 31–18 | 63.3% | #30 | 1,933 | 1 | 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2022 | 32–20 | 61.5% | #17 | 1,958 | 1 | 20 | 2023 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #352 | 1,938 | 0 | 12 |
| 34 | 2023 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #672 | 1,912 | 1 | 20 | 2024 | 7–8 | 46.7% | #106 | 1,863 | 0 | 12 |
| 35 | 2024 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #179 | 1,816 | 1 | 21 | 2025 | 9–9 | 50.0% | #156 | 1,809 | 0 | 12 |
| 36 | 2025 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #73 | 1,819 | 1 | 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 2026 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #88 | 1,758 | 1 | 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |