H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Stefan Edberg vs Cedric Pioline H2H: 3-1
Stefan Edberg holds a 3–1 lead over Cedric Pioline in their ATP head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on clay, while Stefan Edberg leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Stefan Edberg won the 1996 Rome Masters third round 6-3 7-6(12).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
SWE
Age 60
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 16, 1996* | Rome Masters | Masters 1000 | R32 | Clay | Stefan Edberg | 6-3 7-6(12) | Cedric Pioline | Match data |
| Sep 28, 1995* | Basel | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Stefan Edberg | 7-5 4-6 6-2 | Cedric Pioline | Match data |
| Jul 2, 1993* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | QF | Grass | Stefan Edberg | 7-5 7-5 6-3 | Cedric Pioline | Match data |
| Apr 25, 1993* | Monte Carlo Masters | Masters 1000 | SF | Clay | Cedric Pioline | 6-4 6-4 | Stefan Edberg | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stefan Edberg | #1,347 | #1 | 3,997 | 2,233 | 744 | 246 | 75.2% | 6 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 29 | 41 |
| 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 | Stefan Edberg | Cedric Pioline | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 1982 | 0–3 | 0.0% | — | 1,463 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1983 | 12–10 | 54.5% | #54 | 1,616 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1984 | 27–18 | 60.0% | #20 | 1,823 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1985 | 58–17 | 77.3% | #5 | 2,129 | 1 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1986 | 66–20 | 76.7% | #5 | 2,121 | 1 | 8 | 1989 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #202 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1987 | 75–12 | 86.2% | #2 | 2,206 | 2 | 15 | 1990 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #118 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1988 | 54–15 | 78.3% | #5 | 2,080 | 3 | 18 | 1991 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #51 | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1989 | 58–16 | 78.4% | #3 | 2,149 | 3 | 20 | 1992 | 31–27 | 53.4% | #33 | 1,845 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1990 | 67–13 | 83.8% | #1 | 2,172 | 4 | 27 | 1993 | 51–27 | 65.4% | #10 | 1,936 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1991 | 73–14 | 83.9% | #1 | 2,146 | 5 | 33 | 1994 | 29–28 | 50.9% | #51 | 1,767 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1992 | 64–19 | 77.1% | #2 | 2,044 | 6 | 36 | 1995 | 24–27 | 47.1% | #54 | 1,760 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1993 | 58–22 | 72.5% | #5 | 1,986 | 6 | 37 | 1996 | 38–21 | 64.4% | #21 | 1,805 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 1994 | 53–23 | 69.7% | #7 | 1,854 | 6 | 40 | 1997 | 37–25 | 59.7% | #20 | 1,834 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 1995 | 35–19 | 64.8% | #23 | 1,823 | 6 | 41 | 1998 | 38–26 | 59.4% | #18 | 1,764 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 1996 | 44–25 | 63.8% | #14 | 1,890 | 6 | 41 | 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 |