H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 14:16 UTC

Marin Cilic vs Richard Gasquet H2H: 1-2

Richard Gasquet 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 Richard Gasquet leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Marin Cilic won the 2016 Indian Wells Masters fourth round 7-5 5-7 6-2.

Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.

Marin Cilic
Croatia Age 37 Right-Handed 198 cm / 6'6"
H2H
1 – 2
3 main draw meetings
Richard Gasquet
France Age 40 Right-Handed 183 cm / 6'0"

H2H Match Log

DateTournamentCategoryRoundSurfaceWinnerScoreLoserMatch
Mar 17, 2016* Indian Wells Masters Masters 1000 R16 Hard Marin Cilic #12 7-5 5-7 6-2 Richard Gasquet #10 Match data
Aug 21, 2015* Cincinnati Masters Masters 1000 R16 Hard Richard Gasquet #13 7-5 6-3 Marin Cilic #9 Match data
Apr 19, 2013* Monte Carlo Masters Masters 1000 R16 Clay Richard Gasquet #9 7-5 6-4 Marin Cilic #11 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
Richard Gasquet #448 #7 3,365 2,165 596 406 59.5% 0 0 0 0 16 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 Richard Gasquet
YrW-LWin %RankEloGSTitles YrW-LWin %RankEloGSTitles
16 2005 0–1 0.0% #587 1,486 0 0 2002 1–5 16.7% #161 1,486 0 0
17 2006 5–9 35.7% #170 1,499 0 0 2003 2–8 20.0% #93 1,463 0 0
18 2007 12–12 50.0% #71 1,714 0 0 2004 13–15 46.4% #107 1,597 0 0
19 2008 36–23 61.0% #23 1,904 0 1 2005 30–10 75.0% #16 1,851 0 1
20 2009 45–20 69.2% #14 1,989 0 3 2006 33–20 62.3% #18 1,922 0 4
21 2010 38–21 64.4% #14 1,854 0 5 2007 47–24 66.2% #8 1,920 0 5
22 2011 40–23 63.5% #21 1,963 0 6 2008 31–21 59.6% #25 1,869 0 5
23 2012 37–17 68.5% #15 2,009 0 8 2009 23–15 60.5% #52 1,855 0 5
24 2013 24–13 64.9% #37 1,964 0 9 2010 38–24 61.3% #30 1,892 0 6
25 2014 51–21 70.8% #9 2,127 1 13 2011 34–18 65.4% #19 1,984 0 6
26 2015 35–19 64.8% #13 2,061 1 14 2012 41–21 66.1% #10 2,002 0 7
27 2016 42–20 67.7% #6 2,133 1 16 2013 48–23 67.6% #9 2,046 0 10
28 2017 43–22 66.2% #6 2,055 1 17 2014 29–19 60.4% #26 1,935 0 10
29 2018 40–19 67.8% #7 2,056 1 18 2015 43–17 71.7% #9 2,127 0 12
30 2019 22–20 52.4% #39 1,911 1 18 2016 33–17 66.0% #18 1,998 0 14
31 2020 11–11 50.0% #42 1,850 1 18 2017 28–18 60.9% #31 1,956 0 14
32 2021 31–18 63.3% #30 1,933 1 20 2018 34–23 59.6% #26 1,933 0 15
33 2022 32–20 61.5% #17 1,958 1 20 2019 17–18 48.6% #61 1,844 0 15
34 2023 1–2 33.3% #672 1,912 1 20 2020 10–10 50.0% #47 1,823 0 15
35 2024 6–8 42.9% #179 1,816 1 21 2021 14–17 45.2% #87 1,772 0 15
36 2025 8–11 42.1% #73 1,819 1 21 2022 24–19 55.8% #68 1,860 0 15
37 2026 13–14 48.1% #88 1,758 1 21 2023 15–25 37.5% #76 1,628 0 16
38 — — — — — — — 2024 4–14 22.2% #129 1,620 0 16
39 — — — — — — — 2025 4–5 44.4% #313 1,636 0 16