H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Gilles Simon vs Tennys Sandgren H2H: 2-1
Gilles Simon holds a 2–1 lead over Tennys Sandgren in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on grass, while Gilles Simon leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Tennys Sandgren won the 2019 Wimbledon second round 6-2 6-3 4-6 3-6 8-6.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
FRA
Age 41
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
USA
Age 34
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 4, 2019* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R64 | Grass | Tennys Sandgren | 6-2 6-3 4-6 3-6 8-6 | Gilles Simon | Match data |
| Jun 26, 2019* | Eastbourne | ATP 250 | R32 | Grass | Gilles Simon | 7-5 6-1 | Tennys Sandgren | Match data |
| Jan 4, 2018* | Pune | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Gilles Simon | 6-4 6-1 | Tennys Sandgren | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gilles Simon | #464 | #6 | 4,170 | 2,093 | 493 | 379 | 56.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 13 | 14 |
| Tennys Sandgren | #1,243 | #41 | 1,091 | 1,870 | 47 | 75 | 38.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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 | Gilles Simon | Tennys Sandgren | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 19 | 2004 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #177 | 1,460 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 2005 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #124 | 1,540 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2006 | 24–24 | 50.0% | #45 | 1,633 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2007 | 35–26 | 57.4% | #29 | 1,783 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 23 | 2008 | 50–26 | 65.8% | #7 | 1,981 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 2009 | 45–24 | 65.2% | #15 | 1,936 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 25 | 2010 | 22–17 | 56.4% | #41 | 1,930 | 0 | 7 | 2017 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #96 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2011 | 38–25 | 60.3% | #12 | 1,905 | 0 | 9 | 2018 | 16–20 | 44.4% | #61 | 1,662 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2012 | 41–23 | 64.1% | #16 | 1,959 | 0 | 10 | 2019 | 13–17 | 43.3% | #68 | 1,761 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2013 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #19 | 1,926 | 0 | 11 | 2020 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #49 | 1,757 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2014 | 28–25 | 52.8% | #21 | 1,953 | 0 | 11 | 2021 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #96 | 1,689 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2015 | 41–22 | 65.1% | #15 | 1,990 | 0 | 12 | 2022 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #265 | 1,675 | 0 | 1 |
| 31 | 2016 | 30–25 | 54.5% | #25 | 1,937 | 0 | 12 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2017 | 15–25 | 37.5% | #89 | 1,764 | 0 | 12 | 2024 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #506 | 1,646 | 0 | 1 |
| 33 | 2018 | 33–24 | 57.9% | #30 | 1,861 | 0 | 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2019 | 27–28 | 49.1% | #55 | 1,773 | 0 | 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2020 | 10–12 | 45.5% | #63 | 1,754 | 0 | 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2021 | 5–16 | 23.8% | #122 | 1,634 | 0 | 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 2022 | 7–8 | 46.7% | #143 | 1,707 | 0 | 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |