H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Sjeng Schalken vs Cedric Pioline H2H: 1-1
Sjeng Schalken and Cedric Pioline are tied 1–1 in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Sjeng Schalken won the 2002 Washington third round 7-6(5) 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.
NED
Age 49
Right-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
H2H
1
–
1
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 15, 2002* | Washington | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Sjeng Schalken | 7-6(5) 6-1 | Cedric Pioline | Match data |
| Aug 30, 1995* | US Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Cedric Pioline | 6-4 7-5 6-1 | Sjeng Schalken | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sjeng Schalken | #677 | #11 | 1,790 | 1,934 | 280 | 254 | 52.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 9 |
| 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 | Sjeng Schalken | Cedric Pioline | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 1994 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #148 | 1,501 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1995 | 17–14 | 54.8% | #69 | 1,645 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1996 | 26–26 | 50.0% | #65 | 1,687 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1997 | 16–25 | 39.0% | #59 | 1,632 | 0 | 3 | 1989 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #202 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1998 | 22–30 | 42.3% | #66 | 1,592 | 0 | 3 | 1990 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #118 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1999 | 28–26 | 51.9% | #44 | 1,744 | 0 | 4 | 1991 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #51 | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2000 | 35–26 | 57.4% | #22 | 1,824 | 0 | 5 | 1992 | 31–27 | 53.4% | #33 | 1,845 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2001 | 36–27 | 57.1% | #26 | 1,846 | 0 | 6 | 1993 | 51–27 | 65.4% | #10 | 1,936 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2002 | 36–27 | 57.1% | #20 | 1,839 | 0 | 7 | 1994 | 29–28 | 50.9% | #51 | 1,767 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2003 | 39–23 | 62.9% | #18 | 1,826 | 0 | 9 | 1995 | 24–27 | 47.1% | #54 | 1,760 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2004 | 17–18 | 48.6% | #57 | 1,698 | 0 | 9 | 1996 | 38–21 | 64.4% | #21 | 1,805 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2005 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #230 | 1,664 | 0 | 9 | 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 |