H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Martin Klizan vs Aljaz Bedene H2H: 1-2
Aljaz Bedene holds a 2–1 lead over Martin Klizan in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on clay, while Aljaz Bedene leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Aljaz Bedene won the 2017 Chennai fourth round 7-6(3) 6-7(3) 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.
Slovakia
Age 37
Left-Handed
191 cm / 6'3"
H2H
1
–
2
3 main draw meetings
SLO
Age 37
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 6, 2017* | Chennai | ATP 250 | R16 | Hard | Aljaz Bedene | 7-6(3) 6-7(3) 7-6(2) | Martin Klizan | Match data |
| Jul 12, 2012* | Umag | ATP 250 | R32 | Clay | Martin Klizan | 6-2 6-2 | Aljaz Bedene | Match data |
| May 3, 2012* | Belgrade | ATP 250 | R32 | Clay | Aljaz Bedene | 6-4 7-6(6) | Martin Klizan | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Martin Klizan | #831 | #24 | 1,445 | 1,979 | 128 | 146 | 46.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Aljaz Bedene | #1,030 | #43 | 1,169 | 1,893 | 130 | 159 | 45.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Martin Klizan | Aljaz Bedene | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 2007 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #395 | 1,524 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #234 | 1,542 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 2010 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #155 | 1,607 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2011 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #117 | 1,600 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #165 | 1,597 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2012 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #30 | 1,795 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #86 | 1,627 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2013 | 12–24 | 33.3% | #108 | 1,690 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #95 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2014 | 23–16 | 59.0% | #34 | 1,899 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #145 | 1,669 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2015 | 24–27 | 47.1% | #43 | 1,794 | 0 | 3 | 2015 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #45 | 1,775 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2016 | 14–15 | 48.3% | #35 | 1,750 | 0 | 5 | 2016 | 12–19 | 38.7% | #101 | 1,740 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2017 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #141 | 1,755 | 0 | 5 | 2017 | 19–18 | 51.4% | #49 | 1,816 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2018 | 18–9 | 66.7% | #41 | 1,917 | 0 | 6 | 2018 | 17–19 | 47.2% | #67 | 1,732 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2019 | 9–18 | 33.3% | #141 | 1,703 | 0 | 6 | 2019 | 18–18 | 50.0% | #58 | 1,838 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2020 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #151 | 1,649 | 0 | 6 | 2020 | 10–12 | 45.5% | #58 | 1,796 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2021 | 15–15 | 50.0% | #109 | 1,773 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #347 | 1,658 | 0 | 0 |
| 35 | 2025 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #835 | 1,556 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |