H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Michael Chang vs Bill Scanlon H2H: 1-0
Michael Chang holds a 1–0 lead over Bill Scanlon in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Michael Chang leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Michael Chang won the 1989 Wimbledon first round 6-4 6-3 2-6 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.
USA
Age 54
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
USA
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 28, 1989* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R128 | Grass | Michael Chang | 6-4 6-3 2-6 6-3 | Bill Scanlon | 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 |
| Bill Scanlon | #996 | #9 | 56 | 2,017 | 307 | 259 | 54.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 |
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 | Bill Scanlon | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1976 | 15–17 | 46.9% | #52 | 1,651 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1992 | 57–22 | 72.2% | #6 | 1,975 | 1 | 8 | 1977 | 36–30 | 54.5% | #37 | 1,723 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1993 | 62–21 | 74.7% | #8 | 1,992 | 1 | 13 | 1978 | 14–21 | 40.0% | #95 | 1,764 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1994 | 66–19 | 77.6% | #6 | 2,005 | 1 | 19 | 1979 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #41 | 1,839 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 1995 | 65–19 | 77.4% | #5 | 2,008 | 1 | 23 | 1980 | 37–29 | 56.1% | #25 | 1,808 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 1996 | 63–19 | 76.8% | #2 | 1,985 | 1 | 26 | 1981 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #30 | 1,879 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 1997 | 53–18 | 74.6% | #3 | 1,910 | 1 | 31 | 1982 | 31–24 | 56.4% | #71 | 1,852 | 0 | 6 |
| 26 | 1998 | 35–16 | 68.6% | #29 | 1,838 | 1 | 33 | 1983 | 42–21 | 66.7% | #12 | 1,923 | 0 | 6 |
| 27 | 1999 | 27–22 | 55.1% | #50 | 1,788 | 1 | 33 | 1984 | 20–17 | 54.1% | #57 | 1,828 | 0 | 6 |
| 28 | 2000 | 42–25 | 62.7% | #32 | 1,818 | 1 | 34 | 1985 | 7–13 | 35.0% | #180 | 1,668 | 0 | 6 |
| 29 | 2001 | 16–21 | 43.2% | #94 | 1,701 | 1 | 34 | 1986 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #85 | 1,656 | 0 | 7 |
| 30 | 2002 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #124 | 1,625 | 1 | 34 | 1987 | 16–17 | 48.5% | #99 | 1,562 | 0 | 7 |
| 31 | 2003 | 2–10 | 16.7% | #383 | 1,551 | 1 | 34 | 1988 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #224 | 1,534 | 0 | 7 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1989 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #320 | 1,598 | 0 | 7 |