H2H data updated: 2026-07-20 14:15 UTC
Cedric Pioline vs John Fitzgerald H2H: 0-1
John Fitzgerald holds a 1–0 lead over Cedric Pioline in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, John Fitzgerald leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, John Fitzgerald won the 1992 Sydney Outdoor third round 6-7(2) 6-3 7-6(0).
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
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
AUS
Age 65
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 9, 1992* | Sydney Outdoor | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | John Fitzgerald | 6-7(2) 6-3 7-6(0) | Cedric Pioline | 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 |
| John Fitzgerald | #765 | #25 | 321 | 1,857 | 230 | 221 | 51.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
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 | John Fitzgerald | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1979 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #305 | 1,470 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1980 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1989 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #202 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 1981 | 26–24 | 52.0% | #60 | 1,674 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 1990 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #118 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | 1982 | 22–22 | 50.0% | #78 | 1,696 | 0 | 2 |
| 22 | 1991 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #51 | 1,664 | 0 | 0 | 1983 | 32–19 | 62.7% | #43 | 1,790 | 0 | 4 |
| 23 | 1992 | 31–27 | 53.4% | #33 | 1,845 | 0 | 0 | 1984 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #37 | 1,786 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 1993 | 51–27 | 65.4% | #10 | 1,936 | 0 | 0 | 1985 | 16–21 | 43.2% | #91 | 1,665 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 1994 | 29–28 | 50.9% | #51 | 1,767 | 0 | 0 | 1986 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #102 | 1,654 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 1995 | 24–27 | 47.1% | #54 | 1,760 | 0 | 0 | 1987 | 18–18 | 50.0% | #73 | 1,679 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | 1996 | 38–21 | 64.4% | #21 | 1,805 | 0 | 1 | 1988 | 36–19 | 65.5% | #25 | 1,778 | 0 | 6 |
| 28 | 1997 | 37–25 | 59.7% | #20 | 1,834 | 0 | 2 | 1989 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #117 | 1,651 | 0 | 6 |
| 29 | 1998 | 38–26 | 59.4% | #18 | 1,764 | 0 | 2 | 1990 | 6–13 | 31.6% | #188 | 1,587 | 0 | 6 |
| 30 | 1999 | 37–28 | 56.9% | #13 | 1,795 | 0 | 3 | 1991 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #205 | 1,610 | 0 | 6 |
| 31 | 2000 | 32–19 | 62.7% | #16 | 1,760 | 0 | 5 | 1992 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #166 | 1,618 | 0 | 6 |
| 32 | 2001 | 17–22 | 43.6% | #84 | 1,657 | 0 | 5 | 1993 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #298 | 1,582 | 0 | 6 |
| 33 | 2002 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #119 | 1,618 | 0 | 5 | 1994 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #792 | 1,575 | 0 | 6 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #765 | 1,570 | 0 | 6 |