H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Tom Nijssen vs Jonathan Canter H2H: 1-1
Tom Nijssen and Jonathan Canter are tied 1–1 in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Tom Nijssen leads 1–0 on carpet, while Jonathan Canter leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Jonathan Canter won the 1990 Hong Kong quarterfinal 6-1 6-4.
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 61
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
USA
Age 61
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 28, 1990* | Hong Kong | ATP 250 | QF | Hard | Jonathan Canter | 6-1 6-4 | Tom Nijssen | Match data |
| Feb 22, 1989* | Philadelphia | ATP 250 | R64 | Carpet | Tom Nijssen | 6-2 6-2 | Jonathan Canter | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tom Nijssen | #827 | #87 | 242 | 1,678 | 39 | 76 | 33.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jonathan Canter | #810 | #36 | 244 | 1,792 | 68 | 96 | 41.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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 | Tom Nijssen | Jonathan Canter | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1982 | 3–5 | 37.5% | — | 1,505 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1983 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #279 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1984 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #225 | 1,464 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1985 | 16–14 | 53.3% | #73 | 1,636 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 1986 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #396 | 1,476 | 0 | 0 | 1986 | 27–22 | 55.1% | #41 | 1,731 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1987 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #103 | 1,537 | 0 | 0 | 1987 | 5–17 | 22.7% | #169 | 1,600 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 1988 | 6–13 | 31.6% | #114 | 1,545 | 0 | 0 | 1988 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #182 | 1,582 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 1989 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #99 | 1,634 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 6–13 | 31.6% | #183 | 1,532 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 1990 | 3–13 | 18.8% | #194 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #191 | 1,558 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 1991 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #253 | 1,570 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #408 | 1,539 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 1992 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #221 | 1,601 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 1993 | 4–7 | 36.4% | #235 | 1,624 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #190 | 1,579 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 1994 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #591 | 1,561 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #388 | 1,542 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 1995 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #793 | 1,554 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |