H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 07:16 UTC
Juan Ignacio Chela vs Cedric Pioline H2H: 0-1
Cedric Pioline holds a 1–0 lead over Juan Ignacio Chela in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Cedric Pioline leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Cedric Pioline won the 2002 Barcelona third round 7-6(4) 6-2.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
ARG
Age 46
Right-Handed
190 cm / 6'3"
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 25, 2002* | Barcelona | ATP 250 | R32 | Clay | Cedric Pioline | 7-6(4) 6-2 | Juan Ignacio Chela | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Juan Ignacio Chela | #967 | #15 | 1,510 | 1,909 | 306 | 268 | 53.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 6 |
| 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 | Juan Ignacio Chela | Cedric Pioline | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 19 | 1999 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #124 | 1,463 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 2000 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #63 | 1,540 | 0 | 1 | 1989 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #202 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2001 | 10–10 | 50.0% | #70 | 1,594 | 0 | 1 | 1990 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #118 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2002 | 44–27 | 62.0% | #23 | 1,783 | 0 | 2 | 1991 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #51 | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2003 | 35–27 | 56.5% | #38 | 1,762 | 0 | 2 | 1992 | 31–27 | 53.4% | #33 | 1,845 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2004 | 33–25 | 56.9% | #26 | 1,735 | 0 | 3 | 1993 | 51–27 | 65.4% | #10 | 1,936 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2005 | 28–26 | 51.9% | #39 | 1,691 | 0 | 3 | 1994 | 29–28 | 50.9% | #51 | 1,767 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2006 | 27–26 | 50.9% | #33 | 1,721 | 0 | 3 | 1995 | 24–27 | 47.1% | #54 | 1,760 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2007 | 39–23 | 62.9% | #20 | 1,796 | 0 | 4 | 1996 | 38–21 | 64.4% | #21 | 1,805 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2008 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #140 | 1,737 | 0 | 4 | 1997 | 37–25 | 59.7% | #20 | 1,834 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2009 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #73 | 1,731 | 0 | 4 | 1998 | 38–26 | 59.4% | #18 | 1,764 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 2010 | 28–24 | 53.8% | #38 | 1,835 | 0 | 6 | 1999 | 37–28 | 56.9% | #13 | 1,795 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 2011 | 24–24 | 50.0% | #29 | 1,737 | 0 | 6 | 2000 | 32–19 | 62.7% | #16 | 1,760 | 0 | 5 |
| 32 | 2012 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #176 | 1,634 | 0 | 6 | 2001 | 17–22 | 43.6% | #84 | 1,657 | 0 | 5 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2002 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #119 | 1,618 | 0 | 5 |