Arthur Nagel vs Jip Van Assendelft Head-to-Head Stats, Results & Performance Comparison
Wojtek Kolan
Published on 05 Aug at 08:08 PM UTC
HEAD TO HEAD
A. Nagel vs J. Van Assendelft

FRA
1
Win
Played
0
Win

NED
1
Win
Played
0
Win
Head-to-head: Nagel 1 - 0 Assendelft
They have played 2 sets in total, with Arthur Nagel winning 2 and Jip Van Assendelft winning 0. The last match between Arthur Nagel and Jip Van Assendelft was at the M15 Eupen, 06-08-2025, Round: R1, Surface: Clay, with Arthur Nagel getting the victory 6-3 6-2.
| Players | Head To Head Match Wins |
|---|---|
| Nagel | 1 |
| Assendelft | 0 |
Last 1 H2H Matches:
(R1) M15 Eupen(08-06-25)
A. Nagel vs J. V. Assendelft H2H Profile
| Stats | ||
|---|---|---|
| $0 | Career Prize Money | $0 |
| 63.16% (96-56) | Career Total W/L | 50.79% (32-31) |
| 1 | Clay | 0 |
| 1 | Titles | 0 |
| 1 | Total H2H Matches | 0 |
| 0% (0-0) | YTD Win/Loss | 0% (0-0) |
A. Nagel vs J. V. Assendelft Match Preview:
- Assendelft wins 46.34% of points on their second serve lately, while Nagel wins 47.26%. Does a slight edge here give Nagel an advantage? Potentially.
- Regarding return games, Assendelft takes 49.56% of their opponent's second serve points, and Nagel is slightly ahead with 50.71%. For first serve returns, Assendelft manages 29.55%, while Nagel achieves 31.89%.
- Assendelft’s ability to save breakpoints stands at 54.29%, compared to Nagel's 49.21%. Could this give Assendelft an edge in critical moments? Quite possibly.
- In terms of match outcomes over the past year, Assendelft has a 75% win rate (6 wins and 2 losses), while Nagel has a 59.26% win rate (32 wins and 22 losses).
- Both players excel on Clay surfaces, with Assendelft winning 57% of those matches, and Nagel slightly better at 66%. Neither player shows favorable results on Indoor Hard courts, where Assendelft wins 40%, and Nagel performs at 55%.
- Concerning the level of competition, Assendelft's opponents average a rank of 146.63, whereas Nagel's average at 371.22, suggesting Assendelft has faced tougher opposition.
- If this match proceeds to a deciding set, Assendelft has a strong 80% success rate in such situations, surpassing Nagel's 57%.
- Historically, Nagel is more efficient at converting breakpoints at 42.31%, compared to Assendelft's 31.25%.
Editorial Prediction (August 5, 2025, UTC):
In an upcoming match set against the backdrop of nearly equal second serve efficiency, Nagel seems to have a modest advantage with slightly superior return stats and breakpoint conversion rates.
Assendelft, however, showcases a stronger record in saving breakpoints and has historically performed well against higher-ranked players. Moreover, their outstanding 80% success rate in deciding sets could be a crucial factor if the match extends.
While both players present strengths on Clay, which is their most favored surface, it appears Assendelft potentially faces stiffer competition.
Weighing these elements, Assendelft seems poised to likely secure a victory in this contest, although the match could be tightly contested.
Arthur Nagel vs Jip Van Assendelft Editorial Preview By TennisTipster88.
A. Nagel vs J. V. Assendelft H2H Stats Used In Our Predictions
| Stats | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1 | H2H Matches Won | 0 |
| 2 | Sets Won | 0 |
| 12 | Games Won | 5 |
| 6 | Aces (Total) | 5 |
| 3 | Total Double Faults | 2 |
| 1:4:7 | Average Match Time | 1:4:7 |
| 71% (39/55) | 1st Serve % | 65% (31/48) |
| 82% (32/39) | 1st Serve Win % | 52% (16/31) |
| 50% (8/16) | 2nd Serve Win % | 65% (11/17) |
| 100% (3/3) | Break Pts Won % | 0% (0/2) |
| 44% (21/48) | Return Points Win % | 27% (15/55) |
| 100% (1/1) | Best‑of‑3 Win % | 0% (0/1) |
| 100% (1/1) | 1st Set Won, Won Match | 0% (0/0) |
| 0% (0/1) | 1st Set Won, Lost Match | 0% (0/0) |
| 0% (0/0) | 1st Set Lost, Won Match | 0% (0/1) |
Recent Performance Stats
A. Nagel Recent Matches Played
J. V. Assendelft Recent Matches Played

A. Nagel vs J. V. Assendelft Stats Breakdown Vs All H2H Opponents
| Stats | ||
|---|---|---|
| 63.16% (96/56) | YTD Win/Loss | 50.79% (32/31) |
| 59.94% (208/139) | Sets Win/Loss | 50.33% (76/75) |
| 54.50% (1769/1477) | Games Win/Loss | 50.36% (766/755) |
| 80.00% (8/2) | Hard Win/Loss | 47.62% (10/11) |
| 65.82% (52/27) | Clay Win/Loss | 55.56% (20/16) |
| 57.14% (36/27) | Indoor Hard W/L | 33.33% (2/4) |
| 0.28 | Aces Per Game | 0.07 |
| 435 | Aces Total | 50 |
| 0.2 | Double Faults Per Game | 0.18 |
| 311 | Total Double Faults | 131 |
| 1:19:25 | Average Match Time | 1st Match |
| 347.61 | Average Opponent Rank | 187.43 |
| 65% (5537/8525) | 1st Serve % | 61% (991/1618) |
| 67% (3692/5537) | 1st Serve Win % | 65% (644/991) |
| 50% (1506/2988) | 2nd Serve Win % | 47% (297/627) |
| 43% (367/845) | Break Points Won % (Total) | 41% (65/157) |
| 40% (3324/8261) | Return Points Win % | 40% (642/1604) |
| 50.00% (1/1) | Challenger W/L | 0% (0/0) |
| 63.33% (95/55) | Futures W/L | 50.79% (32/31) |
| 63% (94/150) | Best of 3 Sets Win % | 51% (32/63) |
| 100% (1/1) | Best of 5 Sets Win % | 0% (0/0) |
| 49% (17/35) | Tiebreaks Win % (Total) | 50% (5/10) |
| 59% (26/44) | Deciding Set Win % | 52% (13/25) |
| 88% (95/84) | 1st Set Won, Won Match | 74% (34/25) |
| 12% (95/11) | 1st Set Won, Lost Match | 26% (34/9) |
| 20% (56/11) | 1st Set Lost, Won Match | 24% (29/7) |