H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Guillermo Vilas vs Dan Goldie H2H: 1-1
Guillermo Vilas and Dan Goldie are tied 1–1 in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Guillermo Vilas leads 1–0 on clay, while Dan Goldie leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Guillermo Vilas won the 1989 Charleston third round 6-3 4-6 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.
ARG
Age 73
Left-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
USA
Age 62
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 11, 1989* | Charleston | ATP 250 | R32 | Clay | Guillermo Vilas | 6-3 4-6 6-3 | Dan Goldie | Match data |
| Mar 2, 1988* | Indian Wells | Masters 1000 | R64 | Hard | Dan Goldie | 3-6 6-1 6-4 | Guillermo Vilas | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guillermo Vilas | #1,186 | #2 | 47 | 2,338 | 898 | 282 | 76.1% | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 55 | 63 |
| Dan Goldie | #738 | #27 | 457 | 1,855 | 122 | 117 | 51.0% | 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 | Guillermo Vilas | Dan Goldie | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1968 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,507 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1969 | 3–3 | 50.0% | — | 1,549 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1970 | 2–4 | 33.3% | — | 1,533 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1971 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,538 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1972 | 18–15 | 54.5% | — | 1,693 | 0 | 0 | 1983 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,493 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1973 | 24–14 | 63.2% | #31 | 1,851 | 0 | 1 | 1984 | 7–4 | 63.6% | #101 | 1,615 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1974 | 88–22 | 80.0% | #5 | 2,171 | 0 | 8 | 1985 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #265 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1975 | 87–18 | 82.9% | #2 | 2,129 | 0 | 13 | 1986 | 8–10 | 44.4% | #113 | 1,658 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1976 | 82–20 | 80.4% | #6 | 2,079 | 0 | 19 | 1987 | 24–19 | 55.8% | #50 | 1,765 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 1977 | 128–15 | 89.5% | #2 | 2,303 | 2 | 35 | 1988 | 36–19 | 65.5% | #29 | 1,801 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 1978 | 61–8 | 88.4% | #3 | 2,216 | 3 | 42 | 1989 | 12–14 | 46.2% | #67 | 1,735 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 1979 | 70–21 | 76.9% | #6 | 2,087 | 4 | 46 | 1990 | 24–26 | 48.0% | #96 | 1,657 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 1980 | 67–17 | 79.8% | #4 | 2,050 | 4 | 50 | 1991 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #181 | 1,573 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 1981 | 64–16 | 80.0% | #6 | 2,035 | 4 | 53 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 1982 | 70–16 | 81.4% | #4 | 2,014 | 4 | 60 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 1983 | 51–17 | 75.0% | #11 | 1,947 | 4 | 63 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 1984 | 17–14 | 54.8% | #28 | 1,791 | 4 | 63 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 1985 | 17–14 | 54.8% | #39 | 1,767 | 4 | 63 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 1986 | 18–12 | 60.0% | #22 | 1,760 | 4 | 63 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 1987 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #71 | 1,717 | 4 | 63 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 1988 | 11–15 | 42.3% | #126 | 1,630 | 4 | 63 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 1989 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #408 | 1,601 | 4 | 63 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 39 | 1992 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #463 | 1,577 | 4 | 63 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |