H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Michael Chang vs Alex Calatrava H2H: 1-0
Michael Chang holds a 1–0 lead over Alex Calatrava in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Michael Chang leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Michael Chang won the 1998 Roland Garros first round 7-5 6-3 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.
USA
Age 54
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
ESP
Age 53
Right-Handed
190 cm / 6'3"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 27, 1998* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R128 | Clay | Michael Chang | 7-5 6-3 6-2 | Alex Calatrava | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michael Chang | #1,039 | #2 | 4,065 | 2,110 | 648 | 303 | 68.1% | 1 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 26 | 34 |
| Alex Calatrava | #1,017 | #44 | 841 | 1,719 | 69 | 109 | 38.8% | 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 | Michael Chang | Alex Calatrava | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1987 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #163 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1988 | 23–13 | 63.9% | #30 | 1,842 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1989 | 45–17 | 72.6% | #5 | 1,971 | 1 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1990 | 34–19 | 64.2% | #15 | 1,917 | 1 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1991 | 47–20 | 70.1% | #15 | 2,002 | 1 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1992 | 57–22 | 72.2% | #6 | 1,975 | 1 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 1993 | 62–21 | 74.7% | #8 | 1,992 | 1 | 13 | 1994 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #250 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1994 | 66–19 | 77.6% | #6 | 2,005 | 1 | 19 | 1995 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #239 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1995 | 65–19 | 77.4% | #5 | 2,008 | 1 | 23 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 1996 | 63–19 | 76.8% | #2 | 1,985 | 1 | 26 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 25 | 1997 | 53–18 | 74.6% | #3 | 1,910 | 1 | 31 | 1998 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #114 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1998 | 35–16 | 68.6% | #29 | 1,838 | 1 | 33 | 1999 | 2–10 | 16.7% | #172 | 1,425 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1999 | 27–22 | 55.1% | #50 | 1,788 | 1 | 33 | 2000 | 20–10 | 66.7% | #56 | 1,674 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2000 | 42–25 | 62.7% | #32 | 1,818 | 1 | 34 | 2001 | 18–29 | 38.3% | #100 | 1,555 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2001 | 16–21 | 43.2% | #94 | 1,701 | 1 | 34 | 2002 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #133 | 1,568 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2002 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #124 | 1,625 | 1 | 34 | 2003 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #142 | 1,559 | 0 | 1 |
| 31 | 2003 | 2–10 | 16.7% | #383 | 1,551 | 1 | 34 | 2004 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #81 | 1,564 | 0 | 1 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 4–17 | 19.0% | #202 | 1,469 | 0 | 1 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #180 | 1,462 | 0 | 1 |