H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Michael Chang vs Jan Siemerink H2H: 2-2
Michael Chang and Jan Siemerink are tied 2–2 in their ATP head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Jan Siemerink leads 2–1 on hard courts, while Michael Chang leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Jan Siemerink won the 1999 Indian Wells Masters second round 7-5 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 56
Left-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 10, 1999* | Indian Wells Masters | Masters 1000 | R64 | Hard | Jan Siemerink | 7-5 6-3 | Michael Chang | Match data |
| Mar 16, 1995* | Miami Masters | Masters 1000 | R32 | Hard | Jan Siemerink | 6-4 3-6 6-2 | Michael Chang | Match data |
| Apr 18, 1992* | Hong Kong | ATP 250 | QF | Hard | Michael Chang | 6-3 6-2 | Jan Siemerink | Match data |
| May 29, 1991* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R128 | Clay | Michael Chang | 6-2 6-0 6-3 | Jan Siemerink | 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 |
| Jan Siemerink | #987 | #14 | 1,863 | 1,908 | 261 | 260 | 50.1% | 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 | Jan Siemerink | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1990 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #135 | 1,541 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1993 | 62–21 | 74.7% | #8 | 1,992 | 1 | 13 | 1991 | 30–21 | 58.8% | #26 | 1,756 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1994 | 66–19 | 77.6% | #6 | 2,005 | 1 | 19 | 1992 | 22–26 | 45.8% | #57 | 1,747 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 1995 | 65–19 | 77.4% | #5 | 2,008 | 1 | 23 | 1993 | 24–25 | 49.0% | #53 | 1,670 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 1996 | 63–19 | 76.8% | #2 | 1,985 | 1 | 26 | 1994 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #81 | 1,685 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 1997 | 53–18 | 74.6% | #3 | 1,910 | 1 | 31 | 1995 | 37–29 | 56.1% | #21 | 1,784 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 1998 | 35–16 | 68.6% | #29 | 1,838 | 1 | 33 | 1996 | 35–27 | 56.5% | #15 | 1,866 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 1999 | 27–22 | 55.1% | #50 | 1,788 | 1 | 33 | 1997 | 18–27 | 40.0% | #78 | 1,738 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2000 | 42–25 | 62.7% | #32 | 1,818 | 1 | 34 | 1998 | 38–24 | 61.3% | #19 | 1,809 | 0 | 4 |
| 29 | 2001 | 16–21 | 43.2% | #94 | 1,701 | 1 | 34 | 1999 | 17–25 | 40.5% | #88 | 1,665 | 0 | 4 |
| 30 | 2002 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #124 | 1,625 | 1 | 34 | 2000 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #104 | 1,576 | 0 | 4 |
| 31 | 2003 | 2–10 | 16.7% | #383 | 1,551 | 1 | 34 | 2001 | 12–17 | 41.4% | #127 | 1,564 | 0 | 4 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2002 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #438 | 1,532 | 0 | 4 |