Predictions
Matches
Calendar
H2H
Rankings
Picks Blog
Noah Schachter vs Nathan Ponwith Prediction, Head-to-Head, Odds & Pick - Matchstat.com
By Wojtek Kolan
At Matchstat.com we give you unbeatable in-depth analysis of past and current event tennis stats, to give you accurate tennis predictions, picks, odds and value bets. Let's dive in with our Schachter vs Ponwith analysis and find out who is favored!
Noah Schachter vs Nathan Ponwith Important H2H Prediction Stats:
Head-to-head: Schachter 0 - 0 Ponwith
- Second serve performance recent form: In recent form (last 6 months), Schachter has won 46.85% of points on their second serve, while Ponwith has won 50.64%. There is a high correlation between this stat and match prediction accuracy.
- Return game stats recent form: Return stats show Schachter, in recent form, has won 45.06% of their opponent's second serve points, while Ponwith has won 50.74%. The same stats for first serve returns are 34.47% and 32.17% respectively and this has a high correlation to pick who is favored in this H2H matchup.
- Under pressure analysis: Schachter has saved 60% of breakpoints in recent form, whereas Ponwith has saved 55.44% which is a useful statistic for in-game betting predictions.
- Performance overview: Over the last year Schachter has won 50% of matches played (W/L 30/ 30), with Ponwith winning 30.77% (W/L 16/ 36) that gives us an overall head-to head prediction overview.
- Best surface: Schachter has their best career surface win % on I.hard, winning 58% (W/L 7/ 5), and worse career win % on Clay, winning 49% (W/L 20/ 21). Ponwith has their best career surface win % on Clay, winning 58% (W/L 38/ 27), and worse career win % on I.hard, winning 36% (W/L 8/ 14).
- Player level: In the last year, Schachter has played most of their matches on the Futures/Satellites/ITF tournaments $10K, winning 50.98% of matches (W/L 26/ 25), where as Ponwith has played most of their matches on the Challengers/ITF tournaments > $10K, winning 20.69% of matches (W/L 6/ 23). When comparing stats between players to predict the favorite, it is of course all relative to the event level they have been playing at.
- Opponent quality stats: Over the last 12 months, Schachter has played against opponents with an average rank of 45.95 while Ponwith has played against players with an average rank of 170.83.
- Deciding set performance vs all players: If you are interested in live predictions and betting, if this match goes into a deciding set, Schachter has won 50% of deciding sets over the last 12 months, while Ponwith has won 42% in all matches played on tour.
- Break point conversion: In recent form, Schachter has converted 38.85% of breakpoint opportunities, and Ponwith has converted 40.24% of their chances to break their opponents serve. A telling stat for in-game live betting tips when either player has a breakpoint opportunity.
- If you are interested in models that predict tennis matches, this article is a good start (Warning: Stats geeks only)
840
Rank
789
High
24
Age
Plays
0
Total0
0
Hard0
0
Clay0
0
Indoor0
0
Grass0
793
Rank
367
High
26
Age
R
Plays
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
Form
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
55% (91-73)
Career Total W/L
55% (170-137)
44% (11-14)
YTD W/L
42% (11-15)
$0
Career Prize Money
$0
0
YTD Titles
0
Currently displayed stats includes matches of all levels. To exclude lower level events (as per ATP / WTA official stats) toggle button in page footer.
No H2H Matches Available
Stats Breakdown Vs All H2H Opponents
| stats | Noah Schachter | Nathan Ponwith |
|---|---|---|
| YTD W/L | 44% (11/14) | 42% (11/15) |
| Sets Win/Loss | 42% (24/33) | 42% (25/34) |
| Games Win/Loss | 49% (265/279) | 47% (260/292) |
| Hard Win/Loss | 38% (3/5) | 47% (9/10) |
| Clay Win/Loss | 40% (4/6) | 40% (2/3) |
| Indoor Hard W/L | 57% (4/3) | 0% (0/2) |
| Grass Win/Loss | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Aces pg | 0.46 | 0.24 |
| Aces Total | 122 | 65 |
| DFs per game | 0.31 | 0.39 |
| DFs Total | 83 | 105 |
| Avg Match Time | 1:33:5 | 1:52:14 |
| Avg Opp Rank | 28.52 | 213.92 |
| 1st Serve % | 60% (920/1546) | 57% (1058/1842) |
| 1st Serve W% | 70% (641/920) | 64% (678/1058) |
| 2nd Serve W% | 47% (294/626) | 51% (397/784) |
| BPs Won% Total | 39% (60/154) | 40% (66/164) |
| Return Pts W% | 39% (572/1477) | 39% (693/1765) |
| Slam W/L | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Masters W/L | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Cups W/L | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Main Tour W/L | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Tour Finals W/L | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Challenger W/L | 57% (4/3) | 29% (2/5) |
| Futures W/L | 39% (7/11) | 47% (9/10) |
| Best of 3 Sets W% | 44% (11/25) | 42% (11/26) |
| Best of 5 Sets W% | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| TBs Win% (Total) | 60% (3/5) | 63% (5/8) |
| Deciding Set W% | 71% (5/7) | 57% (4/7) |
| 1st set W, W | 80% (10/8) | 75% (12/9) |
| 1st set W, L | 20% (10/2) | 25% (12/3) |
| 1st set L, W | 20% (15/3) | 14% (14/2) |
Noah Schachter Recent Matches Played
Before:
| opponent | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SF |
Stats 
Learner Tien
Player
Noah Schachter
65%
(
33 of
51)
1st Serve %
68%
(
47 of
69)
3
Aces
3
1
Double Faults
1
70%
(
23 of
33)
1st Serve Won
62%
(
29 of
47)
67%
(
12 of
18)
2nd Serve Won
27%
(
6 of
22)
31%
(
4 of
13)
Break Points Won
33%
(
1 of
3)
31%
(
16 of
51)
Rtn Points Won
49%
(
34 of
69)
69
Total Points Won
51
|
6-3 6-2 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Noah Schachter
Player
Alex Knaff
57%
(
37 of
65)
1st Serve %
61%
(
41 of
67)
2
Aces
1
2
Double Faults
3
65%
(
24 of
37)
1st Serve Won
63%
(
26 of
41)
68%
(
19 of
28)
2nd Serve Won
42%
(
11 of
26)
60%
(
6 of
10)
Break Points Won
40%
(
2 of
5)
34%
(
22 of
65)
Rtn Points Won
45%
(
30 of
67)
73
Total Points Won
59
|
3-6 6-2 6-0 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Noah Schachter
Player
Noah Zamora
61%
(
63 of
104)
1st Serve %
63%
(
68 of
108)
7
Aces
2
3
Double Faults
0
70%
(
44 of
63)
1st Serve Won
59%
(
40 of
68)
54%
(
22 of
41)
2nd Serve Won
55%
(
22 of
40)
31%
(
5 of
16)
Break Points Won
50%
(
2 of
4)
37%
(
38 of
104)
Rtn Points Won
43%
(
46 of
108)
112
Total Points Won
100
|
6-7(6) 6-4 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Noah Schachter
Player
Christopher Bulus
55%
(
65 of
118)
1st Serve %
61%
(
62 of
101)
4
Aces
2
11
Double Faults
2
60%
(
39 of
65)
1st Serve Won
58%
(
36 of
62)
43%
(
23 of
53)
2nd Serve Won
51%
(
20 of
39)
78%
(
7 of
9)
Break Points Won
50%
(
7 of
14)
47%
(
56 of
118)
Rtn Points Won
45%
(
45 of
101)
107
Total Points Won
112
|
7-6(5) 4-6 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Adam Neff
Player
Noah Schachter
52%
(
34 of
66)
1st Serve %
52%
(
43 of
82)
4
Aces
11
1
Double Faults
7
85%
(
29 of
34)
1st Serve Won
79%
(
34 of
43)
69%
(
22 of
32)
2nd Serve Won
46%
(
18 of
39)
33%
(
2 of
6)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
4)
23%
(
15 of
66)
Rtn Points Won
37%
(
30 of
82)
81
Total Points Won
67
|
7-5 7-5 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Andre Ilagan
Player
Noah Schachter
64%
(
25 of
39)
1st Serve %
52%
(
22 of
42)
3
Aces
5
2
Double Faults
4
84%
(
21 of
25)
1st Serve Won
45%
(
10 of
22)
29%
(
4 of
14)
2nd Serve Won
25%
(
5 of
20)
75%
(
6 of
8)
Break Points Won
50%
(
1 of
2)
36%
(
14 of
39)
Rtn Points Won
64%
(
27 of
42)
52
Total Points Won
29
|
6-2 6-0 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Noah Schachter
Player
Ren Nakamura
64%
(
47 of
73)
1st Serve %
48%
(
38 of
79)
12
Aces
7
3
Double Faults
1
87%
(
41 of
47)
1st Serve Won
68%
(
26 of
38)
42%
(
11 of
26)
2nd Serve Won
66%
(
27 of
41)
38%
(
3 of
8)
Break Points Won
100%
(
2 of
2)
29%
(
21 of
73)
Rtn Points Won
33%
(
26 of
79)
78
Total Points Won
74
|
6-3 3-6 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Noah Schachter
Player
Drew Van Orderlain
57%
(
44 of
77)
1st Serve %
65%
(
43 of
66)
11
Aces
0
5
Double Faults
1
75%
(
33 of
44)
1st Serve Won
70%
(
30 of
43)
58%
(
19 of
33)
2nd Serve Won
52%
(
12 of
23)
67%
(
2 of
3)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
5)
32%
(
25 of
77)
Rtn Points Won
36%
(
24 of
66)
76
Total Points Won
67
|
6-3 7-6(3) | H2H | ||
| R1 | 6-4 6-4 | H2H | |||
| R1 |
Stats
Miles Jones
Player
Noah Schachter
56%
(
37 of
66)
1st Serve %
74%
(
52 of
70)
2
Aces
3
3
Double Faults
2
73%
(
27 of
37)
1st Serve Won
56%
(
29 of
52)
55%
(
16 of
29)
2nd Serve Won
44%
(
8 of
18)
36%
(
4 of
11)
Break Points Won
25%
(
2 of
8)
35%
(
23 of
66)
Rtn Points Won
47%
(
33 of
70)
76
Total Points Won
60
|
6-2 7-6(3) | H2H | ||
view more
Nathan Ponwith Recent Matches Played
Before:
| opponent | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 |
Stats
Alan Fernando Rubio Fierros
Player
Nathan Ponwith
65%
(
70 of
107)
1st Serve %
59%
(
73 of
123)
0
Aces
5
5
Double Faults
7
64%
(
45 of
70)
1st Serve Won
56%
(
41 of
73)
43%
(
16 of
37)
2nd Serve Won
50%
(
25 of
50)
45%
(
5 of
11)
Break Points Won
29%
(
4 of
14)
43%
(
46 of
107)
Rtn Points Won
46%
(
57 of
123)
118
Total Points Won
112
|
3-6 7-6(10) 6-2 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Learner Tien
Player
Nathan Ponwith
71%
(
36 of
51)
1st Serve %
58%
(
30 of
52)
3
Aces
1
1
Double Faults
4
83%
(
30 of
36)
1st Serve Won
63%
(
19 of
30)
47%
(
7 of
15)
2nd Serve Won
32%
(
7 of
22)
44%
(
4 of
9)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
1)
27%
(
14 of
51)
Rtn Points Won
50%
(
26 of
52)
63
Total Points Won
40
|
6-1 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Nathan Ponwith
Player
Collin Altamirano
57%
(
58 of
101)
1st Serve %
59%
(
52 of
88)
4
Aces
6
7
Double Faults
1
59%
(
34 of
58)
1st Serve Won
65%
(
34 of
52)
44%
(
19 of
43)
2nd Serve Won
42%
(
15 of
36)
56%
(
5 of
9)
Break Points Won
50%
(
6 of
12)
48%
(
48 of
101)
Rtn Points Won
44%
(
39 of
88)
92
Total Points Won
97
|
6-4 1-6 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Nathan Ponwith
Player
Harsh Parikh
57%
(
31 of
54)
1st Serve %
46%
(
25 of
54)
3
Aces
3
2
Double Faults
6
77%
(
24 of
31)
1st Serve Won
72%
(
18 of
25)
61%
(
14 of
23)
2nd Serve Won
34%
(
10 of
29)
30%
(
3 of
10)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
2)
30%
(
16 of
54)
Rtn Points Won
48%
(
26 of
54)
64
Total Points Won
44
|
6-2 6-3 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Bruno Kuzuhara
Player
Nathan Ponwith
63%
(
47 of
75)
1st Serve %
58%
(
32 of
55)
1
Aces
5
1
Double Faults
5
60%
(
28 of
47)
1st Serve Won
66%
(
21 of
32)
61%
(
17 of
28)
2nd Serve Won
17%
(
4 of
23)
56%
(
5 of
9)
Break Points Won
25%
(
2 of
8)
40%
(
30 of
75)
Rtn Points Won
55%
(
30 of
55)
75
Total Points Won
55
|
6-3 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Nathan Ponwith
Player
Aidan Mchugh
50%
(
30 of
60)
1st Serve %
68%
(
39 of
57)
1
Aces
0
4
Double Faults
0
73%
(
22 of
30)
1st Serve Won
54%
(
21 of
39)
53%
(
16 of
30)
2nd Serve Won
44%
(
8 of
18)
71%
(
5 of
7)
Break Points Won
60%
(
3 of
5)
37%
(
22 of
60)
Rtn Points Won
49%
(
28 of
57)
66
Total Points Won
51
|
7-5 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Nathan Ponwith
Player
Maxwell Benson
60%
(
25 of
42)
1st Serve %
59%
(
29 of
49)
6
Aces
1
4
Double Faults
5
92%
(
23 of
25)
1st Serve Won
55%
(
16 of
29)
65%
(
11 of
17)
2nd Serve Won
30%
(
6 of
20)
50%
(
4 of
8)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
19%
(
8 of
42)
Rtn Points Won
55%
(
27 of
49)
61
Total Points Won
30
|
6-0 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Arvid Nordquist
Player
Nathan Ponwith
73%
(
36 of
49)
1st Serve %
54%
(
38 of
71)
2
Aces
1
3
Double Faults
6
78%
(
28 of
36)
1st Serve Won
66%
(
25 of
38)
69%
(
9 of
13)
2nd Serve Won
45%
(
15 of
33)
23%
(
3 of
13)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
24%
(
12 of
49)
Rtn Points Won
44%
(
31 of
71)
68
Total Points Won
52
|
6-3 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Rudy Quan
Player
Nathan Ponwith
62%
(
38 of
61)
1st Serve %
48%
(
31 of
65)
-
Aces
-
1
Double Faults
6
61%
(
23 of
38)
1st Serve Won
48%
(
15 of
31)
52%
(
12 of
23)
2nd Serve Won
38%
(
13 of
34)
64%
(
7 of
11)
Break Points Won
33%
(
4 of
12)
43%
(
26 of
61)
Rtn Points Won
57%
(
37 of
65)
72
Total Points Won
54
|
6-0 7-6(5) | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Maxime Cressy
Player
Nathan Ponwith
65%
(
33 of
51)
1st Serve %
60%
(
29 of
48)
9
Aces
0
6
Double Faults
3
70%
(
23 of
33)
1st Serve Won
41%
(
12 of
29)
39%
(
7 of
18)
2nd Serve Won
37%
(
7 of
19)
67%
(
6 of
9)
Break Points Won
33%
(
2 of
6)
41%
(
21 of
51)
Rtn Points Won
60%
(
29 of
48)
59
Total Points Won
40
|
6-4 6-0 | H2H | ||
view more
Schachter Vs Ponwith Prediction H2H Images To Share
More tennis photos of Schachter are available here and Ponwith photos here.
Today's H2H Tennis Betting Tips & Predictions
If you are looking to predict tennis or soccer matches, Matchstat.com has you covered! We have league, player and team stats, and specialise in detailed h2h stats between tennis players or soccer teams.
All our predictions are based on machine learning and AI. Matchstat is designed to help you in your analysis and predictions but the responsibility for your final predictions are your own.
It's good to talk... Get in touch with us [email protected]
