H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Michael Chang vs Jacco Eltingh H2H: 2-2
Michael Chang and Jacco Eltingh are tied 2–2 in their ATP head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on carpet, while Jacco Eltingh leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Jacco Eltingh won the 1995 Grand Slam Cup fourth round 7-6 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
2
–
2
4 main draw meetings
NED
Age 55
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 9, 1995* | Grand Slam Cup | ATP Finals | R16 | Carpet | Jacco Eltingh | 7-6 6-3 | Michael Chang | Match data |
| Oct 15, 1994* | Tokyo Indoor | ATP 250 | SF | Carpet | Michael Chang | 6-3 6-4 | Jacco Eltingh | Match data |
| May 12, 1994* | Rome Masters | Masters 1000 | R32 | Clay | Jacco Eltingh | 6-3 7-6(4) | Michael Chang | Match data |
| Jan 16, 1993* | Jakarta | ATP 250 | SF | Hard | Michael Chang | 6-4 6-4 | Jacco Eltingh | 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 |
| Jacco Eltingh | #1,378 | #19 | 1,332 | 1,874 | 124 | 140 | 47.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
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 | Jacco Eltingh | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1989 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #276 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1991 | 47–20 | 70.1% | #15 | 2,002 | 1 | 5 | 1990 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #128 | 1,525 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1992 | 57–22 | 72.2% | #6 | 1,975 | 1 | 8 | 1991 | 12–24 | 33.3% | #114 | 1,510 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1993 | 62–21 | 74.7% | #8 | 1,992 | 1 | 13 | 1992 | 18–22 | 45.0% | #78 | 1,590 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1994 | 66–19 | 77.6% | #6 | 2,005 | 1 | 19 | 1993 | 22–26 | 45.8% | #63 | 1,633 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 1995 | 65–19 | 77.4% | #5 | 2,008 | 1 | 23 | 1994 | 40–23 | 63.5% | #23 | 1,828 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 1996 | 63–19 | 76.8% | #2 | 1,985 | 1 | 26 | 1995 | 24–26 | 48.0% | #43 | 1,771 | 0 | 4 |
| 25 | 1997 | 53–18 | 74.6% | #3 | 1,910 | 1 | 31 | 1996 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #307 | 1,634 | 0 | 4 |
| 26 | 1998 | 35–16 | 68.6% | #29 | 1,838 | 1 | 33 | 1997 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #604 | 1,568 | 0 | 4 |
| 27 | 1999 | 27–22 | 55.1% | #50 | 1,788 | 1 | 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2000 | 42–25 | 62.7% | #32 | 1,818 | 1 | 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |