H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 14:16 UTC
Emilio Sanchez vs Jim Grabb H2H: 0-2
Jim Grabb holds a 2–0 lead over Emilio Sanchez in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Jim Grabb leads 1–0 on grass and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Jim Grabb won the 1996 Wimbledon first round 6-1 6-3 6-3.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
ESP
Age 61
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
0
–
2
2 main draw meetings
USA
Age 62
Right-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 26, 1996* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R128 | Grass | Jim Grabb | 6-1 6-3 6-3 | Emilio Sanchez | Match data |
| Sep 3, 1989* | US Open | Grand Slam | R32 | Hard | Jim Grabb | 4-6 6-3 7-6 6-7 6-4 | Emilio Sanchez | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emilio Sanchez | #1,301 | #7 | 1,634 | 2,038 | 402 | 272 | 59.6% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 15 |
| Jim Grabb | #927 | #24 | 760 | 1,828 | 179 | 199 | 47.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
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 | Emilio Sanchez | Jim Grabb | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 19 | 1984 | 9–12 | 42.9% | #111 | 1,545 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1985 | 16–14 | 53.3% | #64 | 1,668 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 1986 | 52–23 | 69.3% | #16 | 1,841 | 0 | 3 | 1985 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #251 | 1,560 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1987 | 56–23 | 70.9% | #17 | 1,870 | 0 | 7 | 1986 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #94 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1988 | 39–19 | 67.2% | #17 | 1,907 | 0 | 8 | 1987 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #66 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 1989 | 37–16 | 69.8% | #19 | 1,871 | 0 | 9 | 1988 | 17–23 | 42.5% | #91 | 1,562 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 1990 | 48–24 | 66.7% | #8 | 1,812 | 0 | 11 | 1989 | 27–20 | 57.4% | #35 | 1,767 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 1991 | 40–22 | 64.5% | #14 | 1,823 | 0 | 14 | 1990 | 16–18 | 47.1% | #72 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 1992 | 40–25 | 61.5% | #21 | 1,783 | 0 | 15 | 1991 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #87 | 1,679 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 1993 | 28–26 | 51.9% | #41 | 1,686 | 0 | 15 | 1992 | 31–24 | 56.4% | #55 | 1,747 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 1994 | 17–26 | 39.5% | #74 | 1,628 | 0 | 15 | 1993 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #197 | 1,690 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 1995 | 13–22 | 37.1% | #108 | 1,587 | 0 | 15 | 1994 | 18–20 | 47.4% | #68 | 1,669 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | 1996 | 7–16 | 30.4% | #173 | 1,505 | 0 | 15 | 1995 | 6–17 | 26.1% | #207 | 1,544 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | 1997 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #1056 | 1,467 | 0 | 15 | 1996 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #199 | 1,565 | 0 | 2 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1997 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #342 | 1,516 | 0 | 2 |