H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 14:16 UTC
Michael Chang vs Tomas Carbonell H2H: 2-0
Michael Chang holds a 2–0 lead over Tomas Carbonell in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Michael Chang leads 2–0 on clay. Most recently, Michael Chang won the 1995 Roland Garros third round 6-1 6-2 7-5.
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
–
0
2 main draw meetings
ESP
Age 57
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 4, 1995* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R32 | Clay | Michael Chang | 6-1 6-2 7-5 | Tomas Carbonell | Match data |
| May 18, 1995* | Rome Masters | Masters 1000 | R32 | Clay | Michael Chang | 2-6 6-2 6-3 | Tomas Carbonell | 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 |
| Tomas Carbonell | #860 | #40 | 900 | 1,776 | 193 | 222 | 46.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
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 | Tomas Carbonell | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1986 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #404 | 1,480 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1990 | 34–19 | 64.2% | #15 | 1,917 | 1 | 4 | 1987 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #242 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1991 | 47–20 | 70.1% | #15 | 2,002 | 1 | 5 | 1988 | 7–7 | 50.0% | #209 | 1,573 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1992 | 57–22 | 72.2% | #6 | 1,975 | 1 | 8 | 1989 | 15–15 | 50.0% | #77 | 1,623 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1993 | 62–21 | 74.7% | #8 | 1,992 | 1 | 13 | 1990 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #76 | 1,708 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1994 | 66–19 | 77.6% | #6 | 2,005 | 1 | 19 | 1991 | 14–26 | 35.0% | #96 | 1,623 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1995 | 65–19 | 77.4% | #5 | 2,008 | 1 | 23 | 1992 | 21–19 | 52.5% | #65 | 1,658 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 1996 | 63–19 | 76.8% | #2 | 1,985 | 1 | 26 | 1993 | 18–28 | 39.1% | #89 | 1,580 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 1997 | 53–18 | 74.6% | #3 | 1,910 | 1 | 31 | 1994 | 28–27 | 50.9% | #62 | 1,639 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 1998 | 35–16 | 68.6% | #29 | 1,838 | 1 | 33 | 1995 | 26–26 | 50.0% | #74 | 1,677 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 1999 | 27–22 | 55.1% | #50 | 1,788 | 1 | 33 | 1996 | 21–25 | 45.7% | #75 | 1,585 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2000 | 42–25 | 62.7% | #32 | 1,818 | 1 | 34 | 1997 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #170 | 1,576 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2001 | 16–21 | 43.2% | #94 | 1,701 | 1 | 34 | 1998 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #167 | 1,619 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 2002 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #124 | 1,625 | 1 | 34 | 1999 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #826 | 1,581 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | 2003 | 2–10 | 16.7% | #383 | 1,551 | 1 | 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |