H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Cedric Pioline vs Yannick Noah H2H: 2-0
Cedric Pioline holds a 2–0 lead over Yannick Noah in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Cedric Pioline leads 2–0 on clay. Most recently, Cedric Pioline won the 1995 Gstaad third round 6-3 7-6(7).
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
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
FRA
Age 66
Right-Handed
194 cm / 6'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 13, 1995* | Gstaad | ATP 250 | R32 | Clay | Cedric Pioline | 6-3 7-6(7) | Yannick Noah | Match data |
| Jul 17, 1991* | Stuttgart Outdoor | ATP 250 | R64 | Clay | Cedric Pioline | 6-3 6-2 | Yannick Noah | 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 |
| Yannick Noah | #1,303 | #3 | 1,079 | 2,196 | 456 | 194 | 70.2% | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 23 |
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 | Yannick Noah | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1977 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #305 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1978 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #49 | 1,708 | 0 | 2 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1979 | 34–14 | 70.8% | #26 | 1,931 | 0 | 5 |
| 20 | 1989 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #202 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 1980 | 29–16 | 64.4% | #18 | 1,887 | 0 | 5 |
| 21 | 1990 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #118 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | 1981 | 51–18 | 73.9% | #13 | 1,915 | 0 | 7 |
| 22 | 1991 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #51 | 1,664 | 0 | 0 | 1982 | 50–12 | 80.6% | #10 | 2,085 | 0 | 11 |
| 23 | 1992 | 31–27 | 53.4% | #33 | 1,845 | 0 | 0 | 1983 | 36–9 | 80.0% | #5 | 2,085 | 1 | 14 |
| 24 | 1993 | 51–27 | 65.4% | #10 | 1,936 | 0 | 0 | 1984 | 23–10 | 69.7% | #9 | 1,996 | 1 | 14 |
| 25 | 1994 | 29–28 | 50.9% | #51 | 1,767 | 0 | 0 | 1985 | 50–17 | 74.6% | #7 | 1,954 | 1 | 17 |
| 26 | 1995 | 24–27 | 47.1% | #54 | 1,760 | 0 | 0 | 1986 | 43–14 | 75.4% | #4 | 1,994 | 1 | 19 |
| 27 | 1996 | 38–21 | 64.4% | #21 | 1,805 | 0 | 1 | 1987 | 34–13 | 72.3% | #8 | 1,921 | 1 | 21 |
| 28 | 1997 | 37–25 | 59.7% | #20 | 1,834 | 0 | 2 | 1988 | 32–10 | 76.2% | #12 | 1,940 | 1 | 22 |
| 29 | 1998 | 38–26 | 59.4% | #18 | 1,764 | 0 | 2 | 1989 | 21–14 | 60.0% | #16 | 1,875 | 1 | 22 |
| 30 | 1999 | 37–28 | 56.9% | #13 | 1,795 | 0 | 3 | 1990 | 22–21 | 51.2% | #40 | 1,724 | 1 | 23 |
| 31 | 2000 | 32–19 | 62.7% | #16 | 1,760 | 0 | 5 | 1991 | 7–7 | 50.0% | #188 | 1,716 | 1 | 23 |
| 32 | 2001 | 17–22 | 43.6% | #84 | 1,657 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2002 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #119 | 1,618 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #552 | 1,692 | 1 | 23 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1996 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1300 | 1,678 | 1 | 23 |