H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Ronald Agenor vs Cedric Pioline H2H: 0-3
Cedric Pioline holds a 3–0 lead over Ronald Agenor in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Cedric Pioline leads 2–0 on hard courts and 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Cedric Pioline won the 2001 Chennai fourth round 4-6 6-3 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.
HAI
Age 61
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
0
–
3
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 5, 2001* | Chennai | ATP 250 | R16 | Hard | Cedric Pioline | 4-6 6-3 6-2 | Ronald Agenor | Match data |
| Sep 17, 1992* | Bordeaux | ATP 250 | R32 | Clay | Cedric Pioline | 2-6 6-3 7-5 | Ronald Agenor | Match data |
| Oct 4, 1991* | Toulouse | ATP 250 | R16 | Hard | Cedric Pioline | 7-5 7-6(4) | Ronald Agenor | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ronald Agenor | #1,507 | #22 | 984 | 1,895 | 215 | 251 | 46.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| 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 | Ronald Agenor | Cedric Pioline | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 19 | 1984 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #418 | 1,480 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1985 | 17–14 | 54.8% | #49 | 1,657 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #202 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1986 | 20–22 | 47.6% | #74 | 1,672 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #118 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1987 | 25–20 | 55.6% | #44 | 1,736 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #51 | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1988 | 24–17 | 58.5% | #28 | 1,776 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 31–27 | 53.4% | #33 | 1,845 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1989 | 24–17 | 58.5% | #37 | 1,768 | 0 | 1 | 1993 | 51–27 | 65.4% | #10 | 1,936 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1990 | 33–25 | 56.9% | #29 | 1,815 | 0 | 3 | 1994 | 29–28 | 50.9% | #51 | 1,767 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1991 | 16–27 | 37.2% | #74 | 1,643 | 0 | 3 | 1995 | 24–27 | 47.1% | #54 | 1,760 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1992 | 5–16 | 23.8% | #132 | 1,538 | 0 | 3 | 1996 | 38–21 | 64.4% | #21 | 1,805 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 1993 | 17–25 | 40.5% | #58 | 1,600 | 0 | 3 | 1997 | 37–25 | 59.7% | #20 | 1,834 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 1994 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #71 | 1,578 | 0 | 3 | 1998 | 38–26 | 59.4% | #18 | 1,764 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 1995 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #146 | 1,585 | 0 | 3 | 1999 | 37–28 | 56.9% | #13 | 1,795 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 1996 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #326 | 1,528 | 0 | 3 | 2000 | 32–19 | 62.7% | #16 | 1,760 | 0 | 5 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2001 | 17–22 | 43.6% | #84 | 1,657 | 0 | 5 |
| 33 | 1998 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #237 | 1,533 | 0 | 3 | 2002 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #119 | 1,618 | 0 | 5 |
| 34 | 1999 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #96 | 1,522 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2000 | 6–16 | 27.3% | #137 | 1,430 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2001 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #188 | 1,466 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |