H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Marin Cilic vs Tomas Berdych H2H: 6-5
Marin Cilic holds a 6–5 lead over Tomas Berdych in their ATP head-to-head. Across 11 main-draw meetings, Tomas Berdych leads 4–3 on hard courts, while they are tied 1–1 on clay. Most recently, Marin Cilic won the 2017 Monte Carlo Masters fourth round 6-2 7-6(0).
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
–
5
11 main draw meetings
CZE
Age 40
Right-Handed
196 cm / 6'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 21, 2017* | Monte Carlo Masters | Masters 1000 | R16 | Clay | Marin Cilic | 6-2 7-6(0) | Tomas Berdych | Match data |
| Aug 19, 2016* | Cincinnati Masters | Masters 1000 | R16 | Hard | Marin Cilic | 6-3 4-6 6-4 | Tomas Berdych | Match data |
| Nov 9, 2014 | Tour Finals | ATP Finals | RR | Hard | Tomas Berdych | 6-3 6-1 | Marin Cilic | Match data |
| Sep 5, 2014* | US Open | Grand Slam | QF | Hard | Marin Cilic | 6-2 6-4 7-6(4) | Tomas Berdych | Match data |
| Jun 29, 2014* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R32 | Grass | Marin Cilic | 7-6(5) 6-4 7-6(6) | Tomas Berdych | Match data |
| Feb 16, 2014* | Rotterdam | ATP 500 | F | Hard | Tomas Berdych | 6-4 6-2 | Marin Cilic | Match data |
| Jun 15, 2013* | Queen's Club | ATP 500 | QF | Grass | Marin Cilic | 7-5 7-6(4) | Tomas Berdych | Match data |
| Apr 18, 2012* | Monte Carlo Masters | Masters 1000 | R32 | Clay | Tomas Berdych | 7-6(3) 6-1 | Marin Cilic | Match data |
| Oct 9, 2011* | Beijing | ATP 500 | F | Hard | Tomas Berdych | 3-6 6-4 6-1 | Marin Cilic | Match data |
| Feb 19, 2011* | Marseille | ATP 250 | QF | Hard | Marin Cilic | 6-3 6-4 | Tomas Berdych | Match data |
| Oct 13, 2009* | Shanghai Masters | Masters 1000 | R64 | Hard | Tomas Berdych | 7-6(8) 3-6 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 |
| Tomas Berdych | #104 | #4 | 5,230 | 2,232 | 594 | 321 | 64.9% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 8 | 13 |
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 | Tomas Berdych | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2003 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #113 | 1,525 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2007 | 12–12 | 50.0% | #71 | 1,714 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 12–13 | 48.0% | #45 | 1,657 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 2008 | 36–23 | 61.0% | #23 | 1,904 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 31–26 | 54.4% | #24 | 1,866 | 0 | 2 |
| 20 | 2009 | 45–20 | 69.2% | #14 | 1,989 | 0 | 3 | 2006 | 42–24 | 63.6% | #13 | 1,933 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 2010 | 38–21 | 64.4% | #14 | 1,854 | 0 | 5 | 2007 | 42–21 | 66.7% | #14 | 1,913 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2011 | 40–23 | 63.5% | #21 | 1,963 | 0 | 6 | 2008 | 30–18 | 62.5% | #20 | 1,919 | 0 | 4 |
| 23 | 2012 | 37–17 | 68.5% | #15 | 2,009 | 0 | 8 | 2009 | 33–24 | 57.9% | #20 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 2013 | 24–13 | 64.9% | #37 | 1,964 | 0 | 9 | 2010 | 41–24 | 63.1% | #6 | 1,919 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2014 | 51–21 | 70.8% | #9 | 2,127 | 1 | 13 | 2011 | 51–23 | 68.9% | #7 | 2,080 | 0 | 6 |
| 26 | 2015 | 35–19 | 64.8% | #13 | 2,061 | 1 | 14 | 2012 | 52–20 | 72.2% | #6 | 2,157 | 0 | 8 |
| 27 | 2016 | 42–20 | 67.7% | #6 | 2,133 | 1 | 16 | 2013 | 51–24 | 68.0% | #7 | 2,084 | 0 | 8 |
| 28 | 2017 | 43–22 | 66.2% | #6 | 2,055 | 1 | 17 | 2014 | 53–22 | 70.7% | #7 | 2,082 | 0 | 10 |
| 29 | 2018 | 40–19 | 67.8% | #7 | 2,056 | 1 | 18 | 2015 | 57–22 | 72.2% | #6 | 2,109 | 0 | 12 |
| 30 | 2019 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #39 | 1,911 | 1 | 18 | 2016 | 39–19 | 67.2% | #10 | 2,080 | 0 | 13 |
| 31 | 2020 | 11–11 | 50.0% | #42 | 1,850 | 1 | 18 | 2017 | 35–18 | 66.0% | #19 | 2,027 | 0 | 13 |
| 32 | 2021 | 31–18 | 63.3% | #30 | 1,933 | 1 | 20 | 2018 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #71 | 1,909 | 0 | 13 |
| 33 | 2022 | 32–20 | 61.5% | #17 | 1,958 | 1 | 20 | 2019 | 13–9 | 59.1% | #104 | 1,869 | 0 | 13 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |