H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Emilio Sanchez vs Yannick Noah H2H: 1-1
Emilio Sanchez and Yannick Noah are tied 1–1 in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Emilio Sanchez leads 1–0 on clay, while Yannick Noah leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Emilio Sanchez won the 1988 Roland Garros fourth round 4-6 6-3 6-7 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.
ESP
Age 61
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
FRA
Age 66
Right-Handed
194 cm / 6'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 1, 1988* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R16 | Clay | Emilio Sanchez | 4-6 6-3 6-7 6-2 6-2 | Yannick Noah | Match data |
| Nov 8, 1985* | Stockholm | ATP 250 | R16 | Hard | Yannick Noah | 7-6 6-7 6-1 | 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 |
| Yannick Noah | #1,303 | #3 | 1,079 | 2,196 | 456 | 194 | 70.2% | 1 | 1 | 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 | Emilio Sanchez | Yannick Noah | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1977 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #305 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1978 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #49 | 1,708 | 0 | 2 |
| 19 | 1984 | 9–12 | 42.9% | #111 | 1,545 | 0 | 0 | 1979 | 34–14 | 70.8% | #26 | 1,931 | 0 | 5 |
| 20 | 1985 | 16–14 | 53.3% | #64 | 1,668 | 0 | 0 | 1980 | 29–16 | 64.4% | #18 | 1,887 | 0 | 5 |
| 21 | 1986 | 52–23 | 69.3% | #16 | 1,841 | 0 | 3 | 1981 | 51–18 | 73.9% | #13 | 1,915 | 0 | 7 |
| 22 | 1987 | 56–23 | 70.9% | #17 | 1,870 | 0 | 7 | 1982 | 50–12 | 80.6% | #10 | 2,085 | 0 | 11 |
| 23 | 1988 | 39–19 | 67.2% | #17 | 1,907 | 0 | 8 | 1983 | 36–9 | 80.0% | #5 | 2,085 | 1 | 14 |
| 24 | 1989 | 37–16 | 69.8% | #19 | 1,871 | 0 | 9 | 1984 | 23–10 | 69.7% | #9 | 1,996 | 1 | 14 |
| 25 | 1990 | 48–24 | 66.7% | #8 | 1,812 | 0 | 11 | 1985 | 50–17 | 74.6% | #7 | 1,954 | 1 | 17 |
| 26 | 1991 | 40–22 | 64.5% | #14 | 1,823 | 0 | 14 | 1986 | 43–14 | 75.4% | #4 | 1,994 | 1 | 19 |
| 27 | 1992 | 40–25 | 61.5% | #21 | 1,783 | 0 | 15 | 1987 | 34–13 | 72.3% | #8 | 1,921 | 1 | 21 |
| 28 | 1993 | 28–26 | 51.9% | #41 | 1,686 | 0 | 15 | 1988 | 32–10 | 76.2% | #12 | 1,940 | 1 | 22 |
| 29 | 1994 | 17–26 | 39.5% | #74 | 1,628 | 0 | 15 | 1989 | 21–14 | 60.0% | #16 | 1,875 | 1 | 22 |
| 30 | 1995 | 13–22 | 37.1% | #108 | 1,587 | 0 | 15 | 1990 | 22–21 | 51.2% | #40 | 1,724 | 1 | 23 |
| 31 | 1996 | 7–16 | 30.4% | #173 | 1,505 | 0 | 15 | 1991 | 7–7 | 50.0% | #188 | 1,716 | 1 | 23 |
| 32 | 1997 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #1056 | 1,467 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #552 | 1,692 | 1 | 23 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1996 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1300 | 1,678 | 1 | 23 |