H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 14:16 UTC
Tim Henman vs Richard Krajicek H2H: 2-2
Tim Henman and Richard Krajicek are tied 2–2 in their ATP head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Richard Krajicek leads 2–0 on hard courts, while Tim Henman leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Richard Krajicek won the 2000 US Open third round 6-4 3-6 4-6 7-5 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.
GBR
Age 51
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H
2
–
2
4 main draw meetings
NED
Age 54
Right-Handed
196 cm / 6'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 3, 2000* | US Open | Grand Slam | R32 | Hard | Richard Krajicek | 6-4 3-6 4-6 7-5 7-5 | Tim Henman | Match data |
| Aug 22, 1998* | New Haven | ATP 250 | QF | Hard | Richard Krajicek | 5-7 6-2 7-6(16) | Tim Henman | Match data |
| Feb 26, 1998* | London | ATP 250 | R32 | Carpet | Tim Henman | 6-7(5) 7-6(2) 7-5 | Richard Krajicek | Match data |
| Jul 2, 1997* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R16 | Grass | Tim Henman | 7-6(7) 6-7(7) 7-6(5) 6-4 | Richard Krajicek | 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 |
| Richard Krajicek | #1,044 | #4 | 3,130 | 2,044 | 408 | 207 | 66.3% | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 17 |
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 | Richard Krajicek | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1991 | 26–20 | 56.5% | #45 | 1,745 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 1995 | 7–7 | 50.0% | #95 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 47–24 | 66.2% | #10 | 1,950 | 0 | 3 |
| 21 | 1996 | 37–24 | 60.7% | #29 | 1,821 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #15 | 1,888 | 0 | 4 |
| 22 | 1997 | 47–23 | 67.1% | #17 | 1,895 | 0 | 2 | 1994 | 32–13 | 71.1% | #17 | 1,883 | 0 | 7 |
| 23 | 1998 | 55–29 | 65.5% | #7 | 1,960 | 0 | 4 | 1995 | 40–20 | 66.7% | #11 | 1,832 | 0 | 9 |
| 24 | 1999 | 41–25 | 62.1% | #12 | 1,785 | 0 | 4 | 1996 | 46–24 | 65.7% | #7 | 1,876 | 1 | 10 |
| 25 | 2000 | 55–23 | 70.5% | #10 | 1,953 | 0 | 6 | 1997 | 50–19 | 72.5% | #11 | 1,969 | 1 | 13 |
| 26 | 2001 | 49–20 | 71.0% | #9 | 1,924 | 0 | 8 | 1998 | 45–16 | 73.8% | #10 | 1,975 | 1 | 15 |
| 27 | 2002 | 45–18 | 71.4% | #8 | 1,867 | 0 | 9 | 1999 | 42–20 | 67.7% | #10 | 1,879 | 1 | 17 |
| 28 | 2003 | 30–16 | 65.2% | #15 | 1,970 | 0 | 11 | 2000 | 26–15 | 63.4% | #36 | 1,885 | 1 | 17 |
| 29 | 2004 | 41–20 | 67.2% | #6 | 1,926 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2005 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #36 | 1,746 | 0 | 11 | 2002 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #112 | 1,839 | 1 | 17 |
| 31 | 2006 | 31–20 | 60.8% | #39 | 1,868 | 0 | 11 | 2003 | 11–10 | 52.4% | #147 | 1,762 | 1 | 17 |
| 32 | 2007 | 4–12 | 25.0% | #292 | 1,684 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |