H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Michael Chang vs Thomas Hogstedt H2H: 1-0
Michael Chang holds a 1–0 lead over Thomas Hogstedt in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Michael Chang leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Michael Chang won the 1989 US Open second round 6-1 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
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
SWE
Age 62
Right-Handed
190 cm / 6'3"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 1, 1989* | US Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Michael Chang | 6-1 6-3 6-3 | Thomas Hogstedt | 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 |
| Thomas Hogstedt | #1,032 | #38 | 413 | 1,736 | 90 | 153 | 37.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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 | Thomas Hogstedt | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1979 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #368 | 1,521 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 1988 | 23–13 | 63.9% | #30 | 1,842 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1989 | 45–17 | 72.6% | #5 | 1,971 | 1 | 3 | 1981 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #549 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1990 | 34–19 | 64.2% | #15 | 1,917 | 1 | 4 | 1982 | 9–10 | 47.4% | #82 | 1,588 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1991 | 47–20 | 70.1% | #15 | 2,002 | 1 | 5 | 1983 | 15–16 | 48.4% | #63 | 1,690 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 1992 | 57–22 | 72.2% | #6 | 1,975 | 1 | 8 | 1984 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #84 | 1,639 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 1993 | 62–21 | 74.7% | #8 | 1,992 | 1 | 13 | 1985 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #210 | 1,520 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1994 | 66–19 | 77.6% | #6 | 2,005 | 1 | 19 | 1986 | 2–8 | 20.0% | #124 | 1,504 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 1995 | 65–19 | 77.4% | #5 | 2,008 | 1 | 23 | 1987 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #179 | 1,508 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 1996 | 63–19 | 76.8% | #2 | 1,985 | 1 | 26 | 1988 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #159 | 1,521 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 1997 | 53–18 | 74.6% | #3 | 1,910 | 1 | 31 | 1989 | 8–10 | 44.4% | #133 | 1,613 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 1998 | 35–16 | 68.6% | #29 | 1,838 | 1 | 33 | 1990 | 12–26 | 31.6% | #91 | 1,509 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 1999 | 27–22 | 55.1% | #50 | 1,788 | 1 | 33 | 1991 | 11–23 | 32.4% | #130 | 1,518 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2000 | 42–25 | 62.7% | #32 | 1,818 | 1 | 34 | 1992 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #181 | 1,547 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2001 | 16–21 | 43.2% | #94 | 1,701 | 1 | 34 | 1993 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #306 | 1,530 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2002 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #124 | 1,625 | 1 | 34 | 1994 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #309 | 1,546 | 0 | 1 |
| 31 | 2003 | 2–10 | 16.7% | #383 | 1,551 | 1 | 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |