H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Emilio Benfele Alvarez vs Cedric Pioline H2H: 0-1
Cedric Pioline holds a 1–0 lead over Emilio Benfele Alvarez in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Cedric Pioline leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Cedric Pioline won the 1997 Prague semifinal 6-3 6-7(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.
ESP
Age 53
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
FRA
Age 57
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 3, 1997* | Prague | ATP 250 | SF | Clay | Cedric Pioline | 6-3 6-7(7) 6-1 | Emilio Benfele Alvarez | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emilio Benfele Alvarez | #1,529 | #81 | 591 | 1,670 | 45 | 67 | 40.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cedric Pioline | #750 | #5 | 2,335 | 1,983 | 370 | 301 | 55.1% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 5 |
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 | Emilio Benfele Alvarez | Cedric Pioline | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 20 | 1993 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #198 | 1,482 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #202 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1994 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #150 | 1,517 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #118 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1995 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #176 | 1,527 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #51 | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1996 | 8–8 | 50.0% | #119 | 1,595 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 31–27 | 53.4% | #33 | 1,845 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1997 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #103 | 1,587 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 51–27 | 65.4% | #10 | 1,936 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1998 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #190 | 1,596 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 29–28 | 50.9% | #51 | 1,767 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1999 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #141 | 1,575 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 24–27 | 47.1% | #54 | 1,760 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2000 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #125 | 1,571 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 38–21 | 64.4% | #21 | 1,805 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2001 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #273 | 1,495 | 0 | 0 | 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 |