H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 07:16 UTC
Tim Henman vs David Sanchez H2H: 2-0
Tim Henman holds a 2–0 lead over David Sanchez in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Tim Henman leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Tim Henman won the 2004 Monte Carlo Masters third round 6-3 6-7(8) 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.
GBR
Age 51
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
ESP
Age 48
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 22, 2004* | Monte Carlo Masters | Masters 1000 | R32 | Clay | Tim Henman | 6-3 6-7(8) 6-3 | David Sanchez | Match data |
| Jan 8, 2004* | Doha | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Tim Henman | 6-4 6-0 | David Sanchez | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tim Henman | #615 | #4 | 2,826 | 2,027 | 468 | 260 | 64.3% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 11 |
| David Sanchez | #1,116 | #41 | 832 | 1,730 | 87 | 119 | 42.2% | 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 | Tim Henman | David Sanchez | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 19 | 1994 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #167 | 1,513 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #262 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1995 | 7–7 | 50.0% | #95 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #340 | 1,470 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1996 | 37–24 | 60.7% | #29 | 1,821 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #196 | 1,459 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1997 | 47–23 | 67.1% | #17 | 1,895 | 0 | 2 | 2000 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #89 | 1,520 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1998 | 55–29 | 65.5% | #7 | 1,960 | 0 | 4 | 2001 | 12–19 | 38.7% | #74 | 1,569 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1999 | 41–25 | 62.1% | #12 | 1,785 | 0 | 4 | 2002 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #60 | 1,633 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2000 | 55–23 | 70.5% | #10 | 1,953 | 0 | 6 | 2003 | 23–27 | 46.0% | #50 | 1,622 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2001 | 49–20 | 71.0% | #9 | 1,924 | 0 | 8 | 2004 | 20–27 | 42.6% | #74 | 1,574 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2002 | 45–18 | 71.4% | #8 | 1,867 | 0 | 9 | 2005 | 9–15 | 37.5% | #137 | 1,596 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2003 | 30–16 | 65.2% | #15 | 1,970 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2004 | 41–20 | 67.2% | #6 | 1,926 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2005 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #36 | 1,746 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2006 | 31–20 | 60.8% | #39 | 1,868 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2007 | 4–12 | 25.0% | #292 | 1,684 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |