H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Cedric Pioline vs Daniel Vacek H2H: 3-0
Cedric Pioline holds a 3–0 lead over Daniel Vacek in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Cedric Pioline leads 2–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Cedric Pioline won the 1995 Toulouse quarterfinal 6-4 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.
FRA
Age 57
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H
3
–
0
3 main draw meetings
CZE
Age 55
Right-Handed
190 cm / 6'3"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 7, 1995* | Toulouse | ATP 250 | QF | Hard | Cedric Pioline | 6-4 6-3 | Daniel Vacek | Match data |
| Apr 21, 1995* | Nice | ATP 250 | R16 | Clay | Cedric Pioline | 6-4 4-6 6-3 | Daniel Vacek | Match data |
| May 12, 1994* | Rome Masters | Masters 1000 | R32 | Clay | Cedric Pioline | 4-6 6-1 7-5 | Daniel Vacek | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cedric Pioline | #750 | #5 | 2,335 | 1,983 | 370 | 301 | 55.1% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 5 |
| Daniel Vacek | #1,133 | #26 | 1,151 | 1,818 | 170 | 219 | 43.7% | 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 | Cedric Pioline | Daniel Vacek | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 20 | 1989 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #202 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #470 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1990 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #118 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 1991 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #51 | 1,664 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 13–22 | 37.1% | #114 | 1,560 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1992 | 31–27 | 53.4% | #33 | 1,845 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 25–27 | 48.1% | #45 | 1,711 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1993 | 51–27 | 65.4% | #10 | 1,936 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 30–31 | 49.2% | #27 | 1,794 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1994 | 29–28 | 50.9% | #51 | 1,767 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 22–28 | 44.0% | #71 | 1,694 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1995 | 24–27 | 47.1% | #54 | 1,760 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 19–26 | 42.2% | #53 | 1,669 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1996 | 38–21 | 64.4% | #21 | 1,805 | 0 | 1 | 1998 | 25–29 | 46.3% | #50 | 1,672 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 1997 | 37–25 | 59.7% | #20 | 1,834 | 0 | 2 | 1999 | 29–31 | 48.3% | #43 | 1,744 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 1998 | 38–26 | 59.4% | #18 | 1,764 | 0 | 2 | 2000 | 4–13 | 23.5% | #238 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 1999 | 37–28 | 56.9% | #13 | 1,795 | 0 | 3 | 2001 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #393 | 1,595 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2000 | 32–19 | 62.7% | #16 | 1,760 | 0 | 5 | 2002 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #749 | 1,578 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | 2001 | 17–22 | 43.6% | #84 | 1,657 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2002 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #119 | 1,618 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |