H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 13:16 UTC
Gustavo Kuerten vs Cedric Pioline H2H: 0-2
Cedric Pioline holds a 2–0 lead over Gustavo Kuerten in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Cedric Pioline leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Cedric Pioline won the 1999 US Open quarterfinal 4-6 7-6(6) 7-6(14) 7-6(8).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
BRA
Age 49
Right-Handed
190 cm / 6'3"
H2H
0
–
2
2 main draw meetings
FRA
Age 57
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 10, 1999* | US Open | Grand Slam | QF | Hard | Cedric Pioline | 4-6 7-6(6) 7-6(14) 7-6(8) | Gustavo Kuerten | Match data |
| Apr 25, 1998* | Monte Carlo Masters | Masters 1000 | R16 | Clay | Cedric Pioline | 7-6(6) 6-1 | Gustavo Kuerten | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gustavo Kuerten | #1,132 | #1 | 4,750 | 2,140 | 336 | 182 | 64.9% | 3 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 11 | 20 |
| 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 | Gustavo Kuerten | Cedric Pioline | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 19 | 1996 | 8–10 | 44.4% | #88 | 1,556 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1997 | 34–23 | 59.6% | #14 | 1,779 | 1 | 1 | 1989 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #202 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1998 | 39–24 | 61.9% | #23 | 1,781 | 1 | 3 | 1990 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #118 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1999 | 47–24 | 66.2% | #5 | 1,860 | 1 | 5 | 1991 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #51 | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2000 | 59–18 | 76.6% | #1 | 2,012 | 2 | 10 | 1992 | 31–27 | 53.4% | #33 | 1,845 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2001 | 57–17 | 77.0% | #2 | 1,915 | 3 | 16 | 1993 | 51–27 | 65.4% | #10 | 1,936 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2002 | 24–14 | 63.2% | #37 | 1,874 | 3 | 17 | 1994 | 29–28 | 50.9% | #51 | 1,767 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2003 | 40–19 | 67.8% | #16 | 1,854 | 3 | 19 | 1995 | 24–27 | 47.1% | #54 | 1,760 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2004 | 23–12 | 65.7% | #40 | 1,834 | 3 | 20 | 1996 | 38–21 | 64.4% | #21 | 1,805 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2005 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #291 | 1,714 | 3 | 20 | 1997 | 37–25 | 59.7% | #20 | 1,834 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2006 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1078 | 1,689 | 3 | 20 | 1998 | 38–26 | 59.4% | #18 | 1,764 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 2007 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #680 | 1,601 | 3 | 20 | 1999 | 37–28 | 56.9% | #13 | 1,795 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 2008 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #1150 | 1,560 | 3 | 20 | 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 |