H2H data updated: 2026-07-17 14:15 UTC
Ivan Lendl vs Cedric Pioline H2H: 3-1
Ivan Lendl holds a 3–1 lead over Cedric Pioline in their ATP head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Ivan Lendl leads 2–1 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Ivan Lendl won the 1993 Munich semifinal 1-6 7-6(1) 0-1 RET.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
USA
Age 66
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H
3
–
1
4 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 1, 1993* | Munich | ATP 250 | SF | Clay | Ivan Lendl | 1-6 7-6(1) 0-1 (ret.) | Cedric Pioline | Match data |
| Apr 15, 1993* | Nice | ATP 250 | R32 | Clay | Ivan Lendl | 6-4 6-4 | Cedric Pioline | Match data |
| Sep 19, 1992* | Bordeaux | ATP 250 | QF | Clay | Cedric Pioline | 7-5 6-4 | Ivan Lendl | Match data |
| Aug 15, 1992* | Cincinnati Masters | Masters 1000 | R16 | Hard | Ivan Lendl | 6-1 6-2 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ivan Lendl | #667 | #1 | 3,420 | 2,424 | 1,051 | 229 | 82.1% | 8 | 11 | 6 | 0 | 69 | 94 |
| 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 | Ivan Lendl | Cedric Pioline | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 1978 | 9–7 | 56.2% | #74 | 1,637 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1979 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #21 | 1,882 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1980 | 103–28 | 78.6% | #6 | 2,131 | 0 | 7 | 1989 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #202 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1981 | 95–12 | 88.8% | #3 | 2,321 | 0 | 17 | 1990 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #118 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1982 | 104–8 | 92.9% | #3 | 2,369 | 0 | 32 | 1991 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #51 | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1983 | 75–16 | 82.4% | #2 | 2,235 | 0 | 39 | 1992 | 31–27 | 53.4% | #33 | 1,845 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1984 | 58–12 | 82.9% | #3 | 2,234 | 1 | 42 | 1993 | 51–27 | 65.4% | #10 | 1,936 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1985 | 80–6 | 93.0% | #1 | 2,367 | 2 | 53 | 1994 | 29–28 | 50.9% | #51 | 1,767 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1986 | 75–6 | 92.6% | #1 | 2,355 | 4 | 62 | 1995 | 24–27 | 47.1% | #54 | 1,760 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1987 | 75–7 | 91.5% | #1 | 2,362 | 6 | 70 | 1996 | 38–21 | 64.4% | #21 | 1,805 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 1988 | 41–8 | 83.7% | #2 | 2,220 | 6 | 73 | 1997 | 37–25 | 59.7% | #20 | 1,834 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 1989 | 80–7 | 92.0% | #1 | 2,261 | 7 | 83 | 1998 | 38–26 | 59.4% | #18 | 1,764 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 1990 | 54–12 | 81.8% | #3 | 2,130 | 8 | 88 | 1999 | 37–28 | 56.9% | #13 | 1,795 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 1991 | 55–18 | 75.3% | #5 | 2,031 | 8 | 91 | 2000 | 32–19 | 62.7% | #16 | 1,760 | 0 | 5 |
| 32 | 1992 | 51–24 | 68.0% | #8 | 2,006 | 8 | 92 | 2001 | 17–22 | 43.6% | #84 | 1,657 | 0 | 5 |
| 33 | 1993 | 33–23 | 58.9% | #19 | 1,780 | 8 | 94 | 2002 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #119 | 1,618 | 0 | 5 |
| 34 | 1994 | 28–18 | 60.9% | #55 | 1,754 | 8 | 94 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |