H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 07:16 UTC
Tim Henman vs Martin Lee H2H: 1-0
Tim Henman holds a 1–0 lead over Martin Lee in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Tim Henman leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Tim Henman won the 2001 Wimbledon second round 6-2 6-3 6-4.
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
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
GBR
Age 48
Left-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 29, 2001* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R64 | Grass | Tim Henman | 6-2 6-3 6-4 | Martin Lee | 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 |
| Martin Lee | #1,474 | #94 | 429 | 1,594 | 19 | 42 | 31.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Martin Lee | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1996 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #618 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1994 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #167 | 1,513 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #265 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1995 | 7–7 | 50.0% | #95 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #334 | 1,451 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1996 | 37–24 | 60.7% | #29 | 1,821 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #273 | 1,455 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1997 | 47–23 | 67.1% | #17 | 1,895 | 0 | 2 | 2000 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #177 | 1,466 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1998 | 55–29 | 65.5% | #7 | 1,960 | 0 | 4 | 2001 | 9–10 | 47.4% | #105 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1999 | 41–25 | 62.1% | #12 | 1,785 | 0 | 4 | 2002 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #203 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2000 | 55–23 | 70.5% | #10 | 1,953 | 0 | 6 | 2003 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #599 | 1,495 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2001 | 49–20 | 71.0% | #9 | 1,924 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2002 | 45–18 | 71.4% | #8 | 1,867 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2003 | 30–16 | 65.2% | #15 | 1,970 | 0 | 11 | 2006 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #304 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |