H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Roscoe Tanner vs Cliff Richey H2H: 2-1
Roscoe Tanner holds a 2–1 lead over Cliff Richey in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Roscoe Tanner leads 1–0 on carpet and 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Roscoe Tanner won the 1978 Los Angeles third round 6-2 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.
USA
Age 74
Left-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
USA
Age 79
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 21, 1978* | Los Angeles | ATP 250 | R32 | Carpet | Roscoe Tanner | 6-2 6-2 | Cliff Richey | Match data |
| Jul 18, 1976* | Cincinnati | Masters 1000 | QF | Clay | Roscoe Tanner | 6-1 6-7 6-1 | Cliff Richey | Match data |
| Oct 25, 1974* | Sydney Indoor | ATP 250 | QF | Hard | Cliff Richey | 5-7 6-2 6-3 | Roscoe Tanner | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roscoe Tanner | #789 | #4 | 0 | 2,158 | 595 | 298 | 66.6% | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 17 |
| Cliff Richey | #662 | #16 | 0 | 2,112 | 488 | 224 | 68.5% | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 23 |
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 | Roscoe Tanner | Cliff Richey | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 1969 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,479 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1970 | 0–9 | 0.0% | — | 1,417 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1971 | 16–10 | 61.5% | — | 1,703 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1972 | 29–14 | 67.4% | — | 1,911 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 1973 | 45–30 | 60.0% | #24 | 1,812 | 0 | 0 | 1968 | 46–15 | 75.4% | — | 1,750 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 1974 | 66–28 | 70.2% | #14 | 1,959 | 0 | 2 | 1969 | 64–18 | 78.0% | — | 1,946 | 0 | 9 |
| 23 | 1975 | 65–24 | 73.0% | #9 | 1,965 | 0 | 5 | 1970 | 88–24 | 78.6% | — | 2,047 | 0 | 14 |
| 24 | 1976 | 70–28 | 71.4% | #11 | 2,012 | 0 | 9 | 1971 | 67–23 | 74.4% | — | 1,906 | 0 | 17 |
| 25 | 1977 | 52–30 | 63.4% | #15 | 1,880 | 1 | 11 | 1972 | 54–24 | 69.2% | — | 1,956 | 0 | 20 |
| 26 | 1978 | 59–24 | 71.1% | #11 | 1,935 | 1 | 13 | 1973 | 47–26 | 64.4% | #19 | 1,848 | 0 | 20 |
| 27 | 1979 | 61–19 | 76.2% | #5 | 2,025 | 1 | 15 | 1974 | 25–16 | 61.0% | #23 | 1,891 | 0 | 21 |
| 28 | 1980 | 42–16 | 72.4% | #13 | 1,993 | 1 | 16 | 1975 | 37–24 | 60.7% | #32 | 1,855 | 0 | 21 |
| 29 | 1981 | 51–22 | 69.9% | #12 | 1,901 | 1 | 17 | 1976 | 33–24 | 57.9% | #28 | 1,848 | 0 | 22 |
| 30 | 1982 | 20–17 | 54.1% | #43 | 1,779 | 1 | 17 | 1977 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #97 | 1,714 | 0 | 22 |
| 31 | 1983 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #36 | 1,872 | 1 | 17 | 1978 | 13–12 | 52.0% | #57 | 1,705 | 0 | 23 |
| 32 | 1984 | 3–11 | 21.4% | #249 | 1,679 | 1 | 17 | 1979 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #662 | 1,693 | 0 | 23 |
| 33 | 1985 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #794 | 1,661 | 1 | 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |