H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Marcelo Rios vs Cedric Pioline H2H: 2-1
Marcelo Rios holds a 2–1 lead over Cedric Pioline in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Cedric Pioline leads 1–0 on clay, while Marcelo Rios leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Marcelo Rios won the 1999 Indian Wells Masters third round 7-6(3) 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.
CHI
Age 50
Left-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
FRA
Age 57
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 11, 1999* | Indian Wells Masters | Masters 1000 | R32 | Hard | Marcelo Rios | 7-6(3) 6-1 | Cedric Pioline | Match data |
| Jun 5, 1996* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R16 | Clay | Cedric Pioline | 6-4 6-1 6-2 | Marcelo Rios | Match data |
| Jun 22, 1995* | Nottingham | ATP 250 | R32 | Grass | Marcelo Rios | 6-2 7-5 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marcelo Rios | #994 | #1 | 3,719 | 2,137 | 366 | 179 | 67.2% | 0 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 12 | 18 |
| 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 | Marcelo Rios | Cedric Pioline | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 1994 | 12–11 | 52.2% | #107 | 1,615 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1995 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #25 | 1,769 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1996 | 52–25 | 67.5% | #11 | 1,835 | 0 | 4 | 1989 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #202 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1997 | 54–26 | 67.5% | #10 | 1,868 | 0 | 5 | 1990 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #118 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1998 | 66–18 | 78.6% | #2 | 1,948 | 0 | 12 | 1991 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #51 | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1999 | 45–16 | 73.8% | #9 | 1,916 | 0 | 15 | 1992 | 31–27 | 53.4% | #33 | 1,845 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2000 | 28–19 | 59.6% | #37 | 1,813 | 0 | 16 | 1993 | 51–27 | 65.4% | #10 | 1,936 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2001 | 28–19 | 59.6% | #39 | 1,836 | 0 | 18 | 1994 | 29–28 | 50.9% | #51 | 1,767 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2002 | 31–19 | 62.0% | #24 | 1,820 | 0 | 18 | 1995 | 24–27 | 47.1% | #54 | 1,760 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2003 | 12–6 | 66.7% | #105 | 1,809 | 0 | 18 | 1996 | 38–21 | 64.4% | #21 | 1,805 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 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 |