H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Michael Chang vs Henri Leconte H2H: 3-1
Michael Chang holds a 3–1 lead over Henri Leconte in their ATP head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Michael Chang leads 2–0 on carpet, while Henri Leconte leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Michael Chang won the 1991 Miami Masters third round 4-6 6-3 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
3
–
1
4 main draw meetings
FRA
Age 63
Left-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 18, 1991* | Miami Masters | Masters 1000 | R32 | Hard | Michael Chang | 4-6 6-3 6-3 | Henri Leconte | Match data |
| Dec 16, 1990* | Grand Slam Cup | ATP Finals | QF | Carpet | Michael Chang | 7-6 6-3 | Henri Leconte | Match data |
| Nov 3, 1989* | Paris Indoor | ATP 250 | R16 | Carpet | Michael Chang | 6-3 6-2 | Henri Leconte | Match data |
| Jun 24, 1988* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R64 | Grass | Henri Leconte | 2-6 7-6 6-2 6-3 | 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 |
| Henri Leconte | #1,355 | #5 | 948 | 2,064 | 344 | 242 | 58.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 9 |
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 | Henri Leconte | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1980 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #440 | 1,461 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1989 | 45–17 | 72.6% | #5 | 1,971 | 1 | 3 | 1981 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #440 | 1,481 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1990 | 34–19 | 64.2% | #15 | 1,917 | 1 | 4 | 1982 | 31–21 | 59.6% | #29 | 1,865 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 1991 | 47–20 | 70.1% | #15 | 2,002 | 1 | 5 | 1983 | 35–23 | 60.3% | #30 | 1,828 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 1992 | 57–22 | 72.2% | #6 | 1,975 | 1 | 8 | 1984 | 26–18 | 59.1% | #27 | 1,866 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 1993 | 62–21 | 74.7% | #8 | 1,992 | 1 | 13 | 1985 | 44–21 | 67.7% | #16 | 1,932 | 0 | 4 |
| 22 | 1994 | 66–19 | 77.6% | #6 | 2,005 | 1 | 19 | 1986 | 38–14 | 73.1% | #6 | 1,972 | 0 | 6 |
| 23 | 1995 | 65–19 | 77.4% | #5 | 2,008 | 1 | 23 | 1987 | 23–16 | 59.0% | #21 | 1,843 | 0 | 6 |
| 24 | 1996 | 63–19 | 76.8% | #2 | 1,985 | 1 | 26 | 1988 | 47–19 | 71.2% | #9 | 1,936 | 0 | 8 |
| 25 | 1997 | 53–18 | 74.6% | #3 | 1,910 | 1 | 31 | 1989 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #115 | 1,798 | 0 | 8 |
| 26 | 1998 | 35–16 | 68.6% | #29 | 1,838 | 1 | 33 | 1990 | 25–17 | 59.5% | #30 | 1,797 | 0 | 8 |
| 27 | 1999 | 27–22 | 55.1% | #50 | 1,788 | 1 | 33 | 1991 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #161 | 1,716 | 0 | 8 |
| 28 | 2000 | 42–25 | 62.7% | #32 | 1,818 | 1 | 34 | 1992 | 17–15 | 53.1% | #61 | 1,807 | 0 | 8 |
| 29 | 2001 | 16–21 | 43.2% | #94 | 1,701 | 1 | 34 | 1993 | 13–11 | 54.2% | #101 | 1,832 | 0 | 9 |
| 30 | 2002 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #124 | 1,625 | 1 | 34 | 1994 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #94 | 1,737 | 0 | 9 |
| 31 | 2003 | 2–10 | 16.7% | #383 | 1,551 | 1 | 34 | 1995 | 8–14 | 36.4% | #134 | 1,632 | 0 | 9 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1996 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #1001 | 1,558 | 0 | 9 |