H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC

Thomas Enqvist vs Cedric Pioline H2H: 2-0

Thomas Enqvist holds a 2–0 lead over Cedric Pioline in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Thomas Enqvist leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Thomas Enqvist won the 2000 London quarterfinal 7-6(3) 4-6 7-6(6).

Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.

Thomas Enqvist
SWE Age 52 Right-Handed 190 cm / 6'3"
H2H
2 – 0
2 main draw meetings
Cedric Pioline
FRA Age 57 Right-Handed 188 cm / 6'2"

H2H Match Log

DateTournamentCategoryRoundSurfaceWinnerScoreLoserMatch
Feb 26, 2000* London ATP 250 QF Hard Thomas Enqvist #12 7-6(3) 4-6 7-6(6) Cedric Pioline #10 Match data
Aug 22, 1997* Long Island ATP 250 R16 Hard Thomas Enqvist #11 7-5 4-6 6-1 Cedric Pioline #24 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
Thomas Enqvist #548 #4 2,693 2,013 422 281 60.0% 0 3 0 0 16 19
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 Thomas Enqvist Cedric Pioline
YrW-LWin %RankEloGSTitles YrW-LWin %RankEloGSTitles
15 1989 0–1 0.0% #1103 1,484 0 0 — — — — — — —
16 1990 0–1 0.0% #472 1,480 0 0 — — — — — — —
17 1991 1–5 16.7% #231 1,467 0 0 — — — — — — —
18 1992 16–9 64.0% #63 1,734 0 1 — — — — — — —
19 1993 18–23 43.9% #88 1,712 0 2 — — — — — — —
20 1994 23–19 54.8% #59 1,761 0 2 1989 0–3 0.0% #202 1,483 0 0
21 1995 63–22 74.1% #7 1,982 0 7 1990 5–12 29.4% #118 1,484 0 0
22 1996 49–25 66.2% #9 1,980 0 10 1991 21–20 51.2% #51 1,664 0 0
23 1997 35–21 62.5% #28 1,873 0 11 1992 31–27 53.4% #33 1,845 0 0
24 1998 35–15 70.0% #22 1,869 0 13 1993 51–27 65.4% #10 1,936 0 0
25 1999 45–25 64.3% #4 1,913 0 16 1994 29–28 50.9% #51 1,767 0 0
26 2000 51–23 68.9% #9 1,906 0 18 1995 24–27 47.1% #54 1,760 0 0
27 2001 31–21 59.6% #24 1,848 0 18 1996 38–21 64.4% #21 1,805 0 1
28 2002 23–17 57.5% #44 1,792 0 19 1997 37–25 59.7% #20 1,834 0 2
29 2003 13–23 36.1% #96 1,710 0 19 1998 38–26 59.4% #18 1,764 0 2
30 2004 12–19 38.7% #72 1,627 0 19 1999 37–28 56.9% #13 1,795 0 3
31 2005 7–12 36.8% #133 1,589 0 19 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