H2H data updated: 2026-07-20 02:15 UTC
Cedric Pioline vs Markus Zoecke H2H: 0-1
Markus Zoecke holds a 1–0 lead over Cedric Pioline in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Markus Zoecke leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Markus Zoecke won the 1992 Australian Open second round 3-6 6-2 7-6(5) 7-6(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
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
GER
Age 58
Right-Handed
196 cm / 6'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 17, 1992* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Markus Zoecke | 3-6 6-2 7-6(5) 7-6(5) | 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 |
| Markus Zoecke | #1,304 | #48 | 791 | 1,742 | 66 | 101 | 39.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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 | Markus Zoecke | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 1990 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #118 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #108 | 1,557 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1991 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #51 | 1,664 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 6–16 | 27.3% | #167 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1992 | 31–27 | 53.4% | #33 | 1,845 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 13–12 | 52.0% | #57 | 1,659 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1993 | 51–27 | 65.4% | #10 | 1,936 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 16–24 | 40.0% | #102 | 1,633 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1994 | 29–28 | 50.9% | #51 | 1,767 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #154 | 1,602 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1995 | 24–27 | 47.1% | #54 | 1,760 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 15–16 | 48.4% | #57 | 1,624 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 1996 | 38–21 | 64.4% | #21 | 1,805 | 0 | 1 | 1995 | 3–16 | 15.8% | #321 | 1,487 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 1997 | 37–25 | 59.7% | #20 | 1,834 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |