H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 14:16 UTC
Kim Warwick vs Yannick Noah H2H: 2-0
Kim Warwick holds a 2–0 lead over Yannick Noah in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Kim Warwick leads 1–0 on carpet and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Kim Warwick won the 1982 US Open fourth round 5-7 6-3 7-5 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.
AUS
Age 74
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H
2
–
0
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 9, 1982* | US Open | Grand Slam | R16 | Hard | Kim Warwick | 5-7 6-3 7-5 6-4 | Yannick Noah | Match data |
| Feb 4, 1982* | Denver | ATP 250 | R32 | Carpet | Kim Warwick | 3-6 6-2 7-5 | Yannick Noah | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kim Warwick | #1,294 | #15 | 15 | 1,945 | 290 | 273 | 51.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| 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 | Kim Warwick | Yannick Noah | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 1969 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | 1977 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #305 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1970 | 6–8 | 42.9% | — | 1,472 | 0 | 0 | 1978 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #49 | 1,708 | 0 | 2 |
| 19 | 1971 | 4–7 | 36.4% | — | 1,467 | 0 | 0 | 1979 | 34–14 | 70.8% | #26 | 1,931 | 0 | 5 |
| 20 | 1972 | 11–9 | 55.0% | — | 1,569 | 0 | 0 | 1980 | 29–16 | 64.4% | #18 | 1,887 | 0 | 5 |
| 21 | 1973 | 11–22 | 33.3% | #108 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 | 1981 | 51–18 | 73.9% | #13 | 1,915 | 0 | 7 |
| 22 | 1974 | 30–23 | 56.6% | #48 | 1,717 | 0 | 0 | 1982 | 50–12 | 80.6% | #10 | 2,085 | 0 | 11 |
| 23 | 1975 | 28–24 | 53.8% | #49 | 1,726 | 0 | 0 | 1983 | 36–9 | 80.0% | #5 | 2,085 | 1 | 14 |
| 24 | 1976 | 28–32 | 46.7% | #67 | 1,746 | 0 | 1 | 1984 | 23–10 | 69.7% | #9 | 1,996 | 1 | 14 |
| 25 | 1977 | 35–29 | 54.7% | #50 | 1,710 | 0 | 1 | 1985 | 50–17 | 74.6% | #7 | 1,954 | 1 | 17 |
| 26 | 1978 | 29–23 | 55.8% | #41 | 1,788 | 0 | 1 | 1986 | 43–14 | 75.4% | #4 | 1,994 | 1 | 19 |
| 27 | 1979 | 37–27 | 57.8% | #52 | 1,804 | 0 | 2 | 1987 | 34–13 | 72.3% | #8 | 1,921 | 1 | 21 |
| 28 | 1980 | 39–25 | 60.9% | #36 | 1,926 | 0 | 3 | 1988 | 32–10 | 76.2% | #12 | 1,940 | 1 | 22 |
| 29 | 1981 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #29 | 1,743 | 0 | 3 | 1989 | 21–14 | 60.0% | #16 | 1,875 | 1 | 22 |
| 30 | 1982 | 15–15 | 50.0% | #36 | 1,799 | 0 | 3 | 1990 | 22–21 | 51.2% | #40 | 1,724 | 1 | 23 |
| 31 | 1983 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #99 | 1,688 | 0 | 3 | 1991 | 7–7 | 50.0% | #188 | 1,716 | 1 | 23 |
| 32 | 1984 | 6–5 | 54.5% | #196 | 1,686 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 1985 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #497 | 1,664 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #552 | 1,692 | 1 | 23 |
| 36 | 1988 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #600 | 1,652 | 0 | 3 | 1996 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1300 | 1,678 | 1 | 23 |