H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 19:16 UTC
Nicolas Kiefer vs Arvind Parmar H2H: 0-1
Arvind Parmar holds a 1–0 lead over Nicolas Kiefer in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Arvind Parmar leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Arvind Parmar won the 2002 Nottingham fourth round 7-6(4) 4-2 RET.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
GER
Age 49
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
GBR
Age 48
Right-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 21, 2002* | Nottingham | ATP 250 | R16 | Grass | Arvind Parmar | 7-6(4) 4-2 (ret.) | Nicolas Kiefer | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nicolas Kiefer | #720 | #4 | 2,447 | 1,984 | 343 | 252 | 57.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| Arvind Parmar | #1,507 | #137 | 282 | 1,604 | 14 | 26 | 35.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Nicolas Kiefer | Arvind Parmar | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 1994 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1198 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1995 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #206 | 1,527 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1996 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #128 | 1,562 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1997 | 26–16 | 61.9% | #32 | 1,798 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1998 | 31–25 | 55.4% | #35 | 1,790 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 1999 | 53–21 | 71.6% | #6 | 1,921 | 0 | 4 | 1999 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #250 | 1,523 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2000 | 30–15 | 66.7% | #20 | 1,921 | 0 | 6 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #154 | 1,555 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2001 | 26–25 | 51.0% | #42 | 1,766 | 0 | 6 | 2001 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #210 | 1,523 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2002 | 19–24 | 44.2% | #72 | 1,718 | 0 | 6 | 2002 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #170 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2003 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,727 | 0 | 6 | 2003 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #166 | 1,516 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2004 | 32–19 | 62.7% | #21 | 1,897 | 0 | 6 | 2004 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #183 | 1,463 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2005 | 31–22 | 58.5% | #22 | 1,854 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2006 | 14–8 | 63.6% | #48 | 1,843 | 0 | 6 | 2006 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #331 | 1,463 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2007 | 19–12 | 61.3% | #49 | 1,893 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2008 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #38 | 1,876 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2009 | 12–16 | 42.9% | #116 | 1,757 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2010 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #722 | 1,717 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |