H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 19:16 UTC
Younes El Aynaoui vs Cedric Pioline H2H: 1-2
Cedric Pioline holds a 2–1 lead over Younes El Aynaoui in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while Cedric Pioline leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Cedric Pioline won the 2002 Marseille third round 6-4 2-1 RET.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
MAR
Age 54
Right-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
H2H
1
–
2
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 14, 2002* | Marseille | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Cedric Pioline | 6-4 2-1 (ret.) | Younes El Aynaoui | Match data |
| Jan 3, 2002* | Doha | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Younes El Aynaoui | 7-6(2) 6-4 | Cedric Pioline | Match data |
| Oct 21, 1993* | Lyon | ATP 250 | R32 | Carpet | Cedric Pioline | 7-6(8) 7-6(14) | Younes El Aynaoui | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Younes El Aynaoui | #1,592 | #14 | 1,635 | 1,923 | 243 | 219 | 52.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| 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 | Younes El Aynaoui | Cedric Pioline | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 1990 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #351 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1992 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #311 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #202 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1993 | 16–14 | 53.3% | #51 | 1,632 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #118 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1994 | 15–27 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,515 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #51 | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1995 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #110 | 1,561 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 31–27 | 53.4% | #33 | 1,845 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1996 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #70 | 1,569 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 51–27 | 65.4% | #10 | 1,936 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1997 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #237 | 1,581 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 29–28 | 50.9% | #51 | 1,767 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1998 | 5–2 | 71.4% | #45 | 1,663 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 24–27 | 47.1% | #54 | 1,760 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1999 | 27–23 | 54.0% | #33 | 1,727 | 0 | 1 | 1996 | 38–21 | 64.4% | #21 | 1,805 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2000 | 36–26 | 58.1% | #25 | 1,714 | 0 | 1 | 1997 | 37–25 | 59.7% | #20 | 1,834 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2001 | 31–23 | 57.4% | #38 | 1,822 | 0 | 2 | 1998 | 38–26 | 59.4% | #18 | 1,764 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 2002 | 42–25 | 62.7% | #22 | 1,773 | 0 | 5 | 1999 | 37–28 | 56.9% | #13 | 1,795 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 2003 | 38–26 | 59.4% | #14 | 1,828 | 0 | 5 | 2000 | 32–19 | 62.7% | #16 | 1,760 | 0 | 5 |
| 32 | 2004 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #644 | 1,739 | 0 | 5 | 2001 | 17–22 | 43.6% | #84 | 1,657 | 0 | 5 |
| 33 | 2005 | 1–10 | 9.1% | #228 | 1,597 | 0 | 5 | 2002 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #119 | 1,618 | 0 | 5 |
| 34 | 2006 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #189 | 1,610 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2007 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #167 | 1,617 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2008 | 5–2 | 71.4% | #201 | 1,688 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2010 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #720 | 1,679 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |