H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 13:16 UTC
Cedric Pioline vs Justin Gimelstob H2H: 1-0
Cedric Pioline holds a 1–0 lead over Justin Gimelstob in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Cedric Pioline leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Cedric Pioline won the 2000 Queen's Club fourth round 6-4 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.
FRA
Age 57
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 49
Right-Handed
196 cm / 6'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2000* | Queen's Club | ATP 250 | R16 | Grass | Cedric Pioline | 6-4 7-5 | Justin Gimelstob | 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 |
| Justin Gimelstob | #841 | #63 | 733 | 1,721 | 107 | 171 | 38.5% | 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 | Justin Gimelstob | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #576 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1996 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #152 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1989 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #202 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 17–23 | 42.5% | #104 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1990 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #118 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 14–15 | 48.3% | #80 | 1,661 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1991 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #51 | 1,664 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 17–26 | 39.5% | #82 | 1,645 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1992 | 31–27 | 53.4% | #33 | 1,845 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 14–16 | 46.7% | #97 | 1,674 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1993 | 51–27 | 65.4% | #10 | 1,936 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 3–12 | 20.0% | #177 | 1,596 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1994 | 29–28 | 50.9% | #51 | 1,767 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #106 | 1,619 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1995 | 24–27 | 47.1% | #54 | 1,760 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 9–17 | 34.6% | #106 | 1,534 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1996 | 38–21 | 64.4% | #21 | 1,805 | 0 | 1 | 2004 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #162 | 1,508 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 1997 | 37–25 | 59.7% | #20 | 1,834 | 0 | 2 | 2005 | 8–9 | 47.1% | #104 | 1,595 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 1998 | 38–26 | 59.4% | #18 | 1,764 | 0 | 2 | 2006 | 14–20 | 41.2% | #86 | 1,606 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 1999 | 37–28 | 56.9% | #13 | 1,795 | 0 | 3 | 2007 | 1–12 | 7.7% | #556 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |