H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Andres Gomez vs Mark Edmondson H2H: 2-1
Andres Gomez holds a 2–1 lead over Mark Edmondson in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on clay, while Andres Gomez leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Andres Gomez won the 1983 Tokyo Indoor fourth round 6-4 6-4.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
ECU
Age 66
Left-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
H2H
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
AUS
Age 72
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 28, 1983* | Tokyo Indoor | ATP 250 | R16 | Carpet | Andres Gomez | 6-4 6-4 | Mark Edmondson | Match data |
| Mar 31, 1983* | Monte Carlo | ATP 250 | R32 | Clay | Mark Edmondson | 7-5 0-6 6-3 | Andres Gomez | Match data |
| Jul 29, 1980* | North Conway | ATP 250 | R64 | Clay | Andres Gomez | 6-3 6-3 | Mark Edmondson | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andres Gomez | #1,171 | #4 | 2,005 | 2,092 | 502 | 261 | 65.8% | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 21 |
| Mark Edmondson | #525 | #15 | 0 | 1,927 | 244 | 231 | 51.4% | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 6 |
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 | Andres Gomez | Mark Edmondson | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1972 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,496 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1979 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #61 | 1,638 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1980 | 36–23 | 61.0% | #42 | 1,800 | 0 | 0 | 1974 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1981 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #37 | 1,899 | 0 | 1 | 1975 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #212 | 1,501 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1982 | 51–25 | 67.1% | #15 | 1,885 | 0 | 3 | 1976 | 42–29 | 59.2% | #35 | 1,754 | 1 | 2 |
| 23 | 1983 | 43–20 | 68.3% | #14 | 1,959 | 0 | 4 | 1977 | 16–24 | 40.0% | #99 | 1,598 | 1 | 2 |
| 24 | 1984 | 60–13 | 82.2% | #5 | 2,072 | 0 | 9 | 1978 | 15–16 | 48.4% | #79 | 1,682 | 1 | 3 |
| 25 | 1985 | 26–14 | 65.0% | #15 | 1,970 | 0 | 10 | 1979 | 26–26 | 50.0% | #95 | 1,740 | 1 | 3 |
| 26 | 1986 | 57–20 | 74.0% | #10 | 1,898 | 0 | 14 | 1980 | 18–23 | 43.9% | #91 | 1,714 | 1 | 3 |
| 27 | 1987 | 46–18 | 71.9% | #11 | 1,913 | 0 | 15 | 1981 | 59–26 | 69.4% | #23 | 1,902 | 1 | 6 |
| 28 | 1988 | 34–18 | 65.4% | #24 | 1,808 | 0 | 15 | 1982 | 27–25 | 51.9% | #18 | 1,713 | 1 | 6 |
| 29 | 1989 | 32–17 | 65.3% | #17 | 1,868 | 0 | 17 | 1983 | 16–17 | 48.5% | #37 | 1,687 | 1 | 6 |
| 30 | 1990 | 38–27 | 58.5% | #6 | 1,726 | 1 | 20 | 1984 | 9–18 | 33.3% | #145 | 1,572 | 1 | 6 |
| 31 | 1991 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #70 | 1,722 | 1 | 21 | 1985 | 9–10 | 47.4% | #115 | 1,595 | 1 | 6 |
| 32 | 1992 | 10–12 | 45.5% | #179 | 1,676 | 1 | 21 | 1986 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #307 | 1,540 | 1 | 6 |
| 33 | 1993 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #402 | 1,606 | 1 | 21 | 1987 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #523 | 1,550 | 1 | 6 |