H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 19:16 UTC
Richard Gasquet vs Tomas Berdych H2H: 7-9
Tomas Berdych holds a 9–7 lead over Richard Gasquet in their ATP head-to-head. Across 16 main-draw meetings, Tomas Berdych leads 7–5 on hard courts, while they are tied 2–2 on clay. Most recently, Richard Gasquet won the 2018 Madrid Masters second round 6-4 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.
France
Age 40
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H
7
–
9
16 main draw meetings
CZE
Age 40
Right-Handed
196 cm / 6'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 8, 2018* | Madrid Masters | Masters 1000 | R64 | Clay | Richard Gasquet | 6-4 6-2 | Tomas Berdych | Match data |
| Feb 17, 2017* | Rotterdam | ATP 500 | R16 | Hard | Tomas Berdych | 7-6(4) 6-1 | Richard Gasquet | Match data |
| Oct 2, 2016* | Shenzhen | ATP 250 | F | Hard | Tomas Berdych | 7-6(5) 6-7(2) 6-3 | Richard Gasquet | Match data |
| Mar 30, 2016* | Miami Masters | Masters 1000 | R16 | Hard | Tomas Berdych | 6-4 3-6 7-5 | Richard Gasquet | Match data |
| Sep 8, 2015* | US Open | Grand Slam | R16 | Hard | Richard Gasquet | 2-6 6-3 6-4 6-1 | Tomas Berdych | Match data |
| May 6, 2015* | Madrid Masters | Masters 1000 | R32 | Clay | Tomas Berdych | 7-6(3) 7-5 | Richard Gasquet | Match data |
| Jan 9, 2015* | Doha | ATP 250 | QF | Hard | Tomas Berdych | 6-2 6-1 | Richard Gasquet | Match data |
| Oct 8, 2014* | Shanghai Masters | Masters 1000 | R32 | Hard | Tomas Berdych | 6-3 6-1 | Richard Gasquet | Match data |
| Mar 29, 2013* | Miami Masters | Masters 1000 | QF | Hard | Richard Gasquet | 6-3 6-3 | Tomas Berdych | Match data |
| Mar 14, 2013* | Indian Wells Masters | Masters 1000 | R16 | Hard | Tomas Berdych | 6-1 7-5 | Richard Gasquet | Match data |
| Aug 10, 2012* | Canada Masters | Masters 1000 | R16 | Hard | Richard Gasquet | 6-4 6-2 | Tomas Berdych | Match data |
| May 14, 2011* | Rome Masters | Masters 1000 | QF | Clay | Richard Gasquet | 4-6 6-2 6-4 | Tomas Berdych | Match data |
| Jan 23, 2011* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R32 | Hard | Tomas Berdych | 6-2 7-6(3) 6-2 | Richard Gasquet | Match data |
| Apr 14, 2010* | Monte Carlo Masters | Masters 1000 | R32 | Clay | Tomas Berdych | 6-2 6-0 | Richard Gasquet | Match data |
| Oct 6, 2007* | Tokyo | ATP 500 | SF | Hard | Richard Gasquet | 7-6(3) 6-3 | Tomas Berdych | Match data |
| Aug 13, 2006* | Canada Masters | Masters 1000 | QF | Hard | Richard Gasquet | 6-4 6-1 | Tomas Berdych | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Richard Gasquet | #448 | #7 | 3,365 | 2,165 | 596 | 406 | 59.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 16 |
| 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 | Richard Gasquet | Tomas Berdych | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2002 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #161 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2003 | 2–8 | 20.0% | #93 | 1,463 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #113 | 1,525 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2004 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #107 | 1,597 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 12–13 | 48.0% | #45 | 1,657 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 2005 | 30–10 | 75.0% | #16 | 1,851 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 31–26 | 54.4% | #24 | 1,866 | 0 | 2 |
| 20 | 2006 | 33–20 | 62.3% | #18 | 1,922 | 0 | 4 | 2006 | 42–24 | 63.6% | #13 | 1,933 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 2007 | 47–24 | 66.2% | #8 | 1,920 | 0 | 5 | 2007 | 42–21 | 66.7% | #14 | 1,913 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2008 | 31–21 | 59.6% | #25 | 1,869 | 0 | 5 | 2008 | 30–18 | 62.5% | #20 | 1,919 | 0 | 4 |
| 23 | 2009 | 23–15 | 60.5% | #52 | 1,855 | 0 | 5 | 2009 | 33–24 | 57.9% | #20 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 2010 | 38–24 | 61.3% | #30 | 1,892 | 0 | 6 | 2010 | 41–24 | 63.1% | #6 | 1,919 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2011 | 34–18 | 65.4% | #19 | 1,984 | 0 | 6 | 2011 | 51–23 | 68.9% | #7 | 2,080 | 0 | 6 |
| 26 | 2012 | 41–21 | 66.1% | #10 | 2,002 | 0 | 7 | 2012 | 52–20 | 72.2% | #6 | 2,157 | 0 | 8 |
| 27 | 2013 | 48–23 | 67.6% | #9 | 2,046 | 0 | 10 | 2013 | 51–24 | 68.0% | #7 | 2,084 | 0 | 8 |
| 28 | 2014 | 29–19 | 60.4% | #26 | 1,935 | 0 | 10 | 2014 | 53–22 | 70.7% | #7 | 2,082 | 0 | 10 |
| 29 | 2015 | 43–17 | 71.7% | #9 | 2,127 | 0 | 12 | 2015 | 57–22 | 72.2% | #6 | 2,109 | 0 | 12 |
| 30 | 2016 | 33–17 | 66.0% | #18 | 1,998 | 0 | 14 | 2016 | 39–19 | 67.2% | #10 | 2,080 | 0 | 13 |
| 31 | 2017 | 28–18 | 60.9% | #31 | 1,956 | 0 | 14 | 2017 | 35–18 | 66.0% | #19 | 2,027 | 0 | 13 |
| 32 | 2018 | 34–23 | 59.6% | #26 | 1,933 | 0 | 15 | 2018 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #71 | 1,909 | 0 | 13 |
| 33 | 2019 | 17–18 | 48.6% | #61 | 1,844 | 0 | 15 | 2019 | 13–9 | 59.1% | #104 | 1,869 | 0 | 13 |
| 34 | 2020 | 10–10 | 50.0% | #47 | 1,823 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2021 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #87 | 1,772 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2022 | 24–19 | 55.8% | #68 | 1,860 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |