H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 14:16 UTC
Cedric Pioline vs David Rikl H2H: 1-2
David Rikl holds a 2–1 lead over Cedric Pioline in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, David Rikl leads 2–0 on clay, while Cedric Pioline leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, David Rikl won the 1994 Munich fourth round 6-3 7-6(1).
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
1
–
2
3 main draw meetings
CZE
Age 55
Left-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 29, 1994* | Munich | ATP 250 | R16 | Clay | David Rikl | 6-3 7-6(1) | Cedric Pioline | Match data |
| Apr 20, 1994* | Monte Carlo Masters | Masters 1000 | R64 | Clay | David Rikl | 6-4 1-6 6-3 | Cedric Pioline | Match data |
| Oct 22, 1993* | Lyon | ATP 250 | R16 | Carpet | Cedric Pioline | 6-2 6-1 | David Rikl | 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 |
| David Rikl | #852 | #41 | 809 | 1,685 | 53 | 92 | 36.6% | 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 | David Rikl | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1989 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #400 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1990 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #313 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1989 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #202 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #163 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1990 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #118 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #151 | 1,502 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1991 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #51 | 1,664 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 7–13 | 35.0% | #95 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1992 | 31–27 | 53.4% | #33 | 1,845 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 19–28 | 40.4% | #80 | 1,534 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1993 | 51–27 | 65.4% | #10 | 1,936 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 7–13 | 35.0% | #83 | 1,533 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1994 | 29–28 | 50.9% | #51 | 1,767 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 10–21 | 32.3% | #150 | 1,528 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1995 | 24–27 | 47.1% | #54 | 1,760 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #173 | 1,578 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1996 | 38–21 | 64.4% | #21 | 1,805 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 1997 | 37–25 | 59.7% | #20 | 1,834 | 0 | 2 | 1999 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #868 | 1,565 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 1998 | 38–26 | 59.4% | #18 | 1,764 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 1999 | 37–28 | 56.9% | #13 | 1,795 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2000 | 32–19 | 62.7% | #16 | 1,760 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2001 | 17–22 | 43.6% | #84 | 1,657 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2002 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #119 | 1,618 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |