H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Michael Chang vs Carl Uwe Steeb H2H: 2-2
Michael Chang and Carl Uwe Steeb are tied 2–2 in their ATP head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on clay, while Carl Uwe Steeb leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Michael Chang won the 1993 Rome Masters fourth round 6-2 7-6(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
2
–
2
4 main draw meetings
GER
Age 58
Left-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 15, 1993* | Rome Masters | Masters 1000 | R16 | Clay | Michael Chang | 6-2 7-6(3) | Carl Uwe Steeb | Match data |
| Jan 17, 1993* | Jakarta | ATP 250 | F | Hard | Michael Chang | 2-6 6-2 6-1 | Carl Uwe Steeb | Match data |
| May 17, 1992* | Rome Masters | Masters 1000 | QF | Clay | Carl Uwe Steeb | 6-4 3-6 6-1 | Michael Chang | Match data |
| Feb 7, 1991* | Milan | ATP 250 | R32 | Carpet | Carl Uwe Steeb | 6-1 7-5 | Michael Chang | 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 |
| Carl Uwe Steeb | #1,355 | #14 | 1,095 | 1,920 | 189 | 190 | 49.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
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 | Carl Uwe Steeb | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1986 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #150 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1991 | 47–20 | 70.1% | #15 | 2,002 | 1 | 5 | 1987 | 10–8 | 55.6% | #41 | 1,615 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1992 | 57–22 | 72.2% | #6 | 1,975 | 1 | 8 | 1988 | 19–18 | 51.4% | #73 | 1,680 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1993 | 62–21 | 74.7% | #8 | 1,992 | 1 | 13 | 1989 | 34–15 | 69.4% | #15 | 1,857 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1994 | 66–19 | 77.6% | #6 | 2,005 | 1 | 19 | 1990 | 21–21 | 50.0% | #46 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 1995 | 65–19 | 77.4% | #5 | 2,008 | 1 | 23 | 1991 | 27–27 | 50.0% | #38 | 1,745 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 1996 | 63–19 | 76.8% | #2 | 1,985 | 1 | 26 | 1992 | 31–24 | 56.4% | #29 | 1,787 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 1997 | 53–18 | 74.6% | #3 | 1,910 | 1 | 31 | 1993 | 18–20 | 47.4% | #94 | 1,718 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 1998 | 35–16 | 68.6% | #29 | 1,838 | 1 | 33 | 1994 | 8–18 | 30.8% | #89 | 1,607 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 1999 | 27–22 | 55.1% | #50 | 1,788 | 1 | 33 | 1995 | 12–16 | 42.9% | #67 | 1,660 | 0 | 3 |
| 28 | 2000 | 42–25 | 62.7% | #32 | 1,818 | 1 | 34 | 1996 | 7–19 | 26.9% | #179 | 1,540 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2001 | 16–21 | 43.2% | #94 | 1,701 | 1 | 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2002 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #124 | 1,625 | 1 | 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2003 | 2–10 | 16.7% | #383 | 1,551 | 1 | 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |