Botic Van De Zandschulp vs Nerman Fatic 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 Zandschulp vs Fatic analysis and find out who is favored!
Botic Van De Zandschulp vs Nerman Fatic Important H2H Prediction Stats:
- Second serve performance recent form: In recent form (last 6 months), Zandschulp has won 49.8% of points on his second serve, while Fatic has won 47.72%. There is a high correlation between this stat and match prediction accuracy.
- Return game stats recent form: Return stats show Zandschulp, in recent form, has won 51.02% of his opponent's second serve points, while Fatic has won 47.23%. The same stats for first serve returns are 28.45% and 36.11% respectively and this has a high correlation to pick who is favored in this H2H matchup.
- Under pressure analysis: Zandschulp has saved 60.66% of breakpoints in recent form, whereas Fatic has saved 60.54% which is a useful statistic for in-game betting predictions.
- Performance overview: Over the last year Zandschulp has won 46% of matches played (W/L 23/ 27), with Fatic winning 54.93% (W/L 39/ 32) that gives us an overall head-to head prediction overview.
- Best surface: Zandschulp has their best career surface win % on I.hard, winning 66% (W/L 87/ 45), and worse career win % on Grass, winning 48% (W/L 10/ 11). Fatic has their best career surface win % on Clay, winning 60% (W/L 278/ 186), and worse career win % on Grass, winning 0% (W/L 0/ 1).
- Player level: In the last year, Zandschulp has played most of their matches on the Main tour, winning 41.67% of matches (W/L 10/ 14), where as Fatic has played most of their matches on the Challengers/ITF tournaments > $10K, winning 54% of matches (W/L 27/ 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.
- Direct H2H matches: They have played 1 times before with Zandschulp winning 1 times. They have played 2 sets in total, with Zandschulp winning 2 and Fatic winning 0. The last match between Zandschulp and Fatic was at the M25 Prijedor, 11-05-2019, Semifinals, Clay with Botic Van De Zandschulp getting the victory .
- Head to head match duration: In past head to head matches, the average match time between these players has been 1:38:0.
- Deciding set H2H prediction: Zandschulp and Fatic have played a deciding set 0 times, with Zandschulp winning 0 times and Fatic 0 times. Very useful for predicting the outcome if this match goes the distance.
- Head-to-Head extreme pressure situations: They have played 0 tiebreaks against each other with Zandschulp winning 0, and Fatic 0.
- Opponent quality stats: Over the last 12 months, Zandschulp has played against opponents with an average rank of 155.86 while Fatic has played against players with an average rank of 262.93.
- Deciding set performance vs all players: If you are interested in live predictions and betting, if this match goes into a deciding set, Zandschulp has won 60% of deciding sets over the last 12 months, while Fatic has won 50% in all matches played on tour.
- Break point conversion: In recent form, Zandschulp has converted 38.55% of breakpoint opportunities, and Fatic has converted 41.33% of their chances to break their opponents serve. A telling stat for in-game live betting tips when either player has a breakpoint opportunity.
Head-to-head: Zandschulp 1 - 0 Fatic
7
Total
0
Mast
1
Chall
0
Slam
0
Main
5
Minor
77
Rank
22
High
28
Age
R
Plays
1
Total0
0
Hard0
1
Clay0
0
Indoor0
0
Grass0
200
Rank
191
High
29
Age
R
Plays
8
Total
0
Mast
2
Chall
0
Slam
0
Main
6
Minor
Form
63% (325-190)
Career Total W/L
58% (338-249)
36% (5-9)
YTD W/L
45% (5-6)
$2,820,045
Career Prize Money
$70,890
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.
Zandschulp VS Fatic H2H Stats Used In Our Predictions
stats | Botic Van De Zandschulp | Nerman Fatic |
---|---|---|
All H2H Matches | 1 | 0 |
Sets Won | 2 | 0 |
Games Won | 13 | 7 |
Aces (Total) | 3 | 2 |
DFs (Total) | 6 | 9 |
Avg Match Time | 1:38:0 | 1:38:0 |
1st Serve % | 58% (40/69) | 78% (53/68) |
1st Serve Win% | 70% (28/40) | 49% (26/53) |
2nd Serve Win% | 28% (8/29) | 20% (3/15) |
BPs Won% (Total) | 58% (7/12) | 67% (4/6) |
Return Points W% | 57% (39/68) | 48% (33/69) |
Best of 3 Sets W% | 100% (1/1) | 0% (0/1) |
Best of 5 Sets W% | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
TBs Win% (Total) | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
Deciding Set Win% | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
1st set W, W | 100% (1/1) | 0% (0/0) |
1st set W, L | 0% (1/0) | 0% (0/0) |
1st set L, W | 0% (0/0) | 0% (1/0) |
Zandschulp VS Fatic H2h Matches played
Winning Player | Losing Player | Score | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
6-2 7-5 |
Botic Van De Zandschulp
Player
Nerman Fatic
58%
(
40 of
69)
1st Serve %
78%
(
53 of
68)
3
Aces
2
6
Double Faults
9
70%
(
28 of
40)
1st Serve Won
49%
(
26 of
53)
28%
(
8 of
29)
2nd Serve Won
20%
(
3 of
15)
58%
(
7 of
12)
Break Points Won
67%
(
4 of
6)
48%
(
33 of
69)
Rtn Points Won
57%
(
39 of
68)
75
Total Points Won
62
|
Stats Breakdown Vs All H2H Opponents
stats | Botic Van De Zandschulp | Nerman Fatic |
---|---|---|
YTD W/L | 36% (5/9) | 45% (5/6) |
Sets Win/Loss | 35% (11/20) | 46% (12/14) |
Games Win/Loss | 45% (147/178) | 47% (117/133) |
Hard Win/Loss | 36% (4/7) | 50% (3/3) |
Clay Win/Loss | 0% (0/0) | 25% (1/3) |
Indoor Hard W/L | 33% (1/2) | 100% (1/0) |
Grass Win/Loss | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
Aces pg | 0.52 | 0.5 |
Aces Total | 82 | 61 |
DFs per game | 0.24 | 0.2 |
DFs Total | 38 | 25 |
Avg Match Time | 1:48:19 | 1:33:35 |
Avg Opp Rank | 200.29 | 310.73 |
1st Serve % | 64% (630/990) | 62% (425/683) |
1st Serve W% | 70% (438/630) | 72% (304/425) |
2nd Serve W% | 49% (175/360) | 48% (125/258) |
BPs Won% Total | 36% (26/72) | 31% (17/54) |
Return Pts W% | 35% (348/1000) | 36% (260/730) |
Slam W/L | 0% (0/1) | 50% (1/1) |
Masters W/L | 33% (1/2) | 0% (0/0) |
Cups W/L | 50% (1/1) | 100% (1/0) |
Main Tour W/L | 38% (3/5) | 0% (0/0) |
Tour Finals W/L | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
Challenger W/L | 0% (0/0) | 38% (3/5) |
Futures W/L | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
Best of 3 Sets W% | 38% (5/13) | 45% (5/11) |
Best of 5 Sets W% | 0% (0/1) | 0% (0/0) |
TBs Win% (Total) | 56% (5/9) | 60% (3/5) |
Deciding Set W% | 50% (1/2) | 50% (2/4) |
1st set W, W | 80% (5/4) | 80% (5/4) |
1st set W, L | 20% (5/1) | 20% (5/1) |
1st set L, W | 11% (9/1) | 17% (6/1) |
Botic Van De Zandschulp Recent Matches Played
opponent | Score | H2H | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
R2 |
Ugo Humbert
Player
Botic Van De Zandschulp
70%
(
44 of
63)
1st Serve %
65%
(
35 of
54)
3
Aces
7
4
Double Faults
2
84%
(
37 of
44)
1st Serve Won
66%
(
23 of
35)
32%
(
6 of
19)
2nd Serve Won
42%
(
8 of
19)
50%
(
3 of
6)
Break Points Won
33%
(
1 of
3)
32%
(
20 of
63)
Rtn Points Won
43%
(
23 of
54)
66
Total Points Won
51
|
6-4 6-3 | H2H | ||
R1 |
Botic Van De Zandschulp
Player
Rinky Hijikata
73%
(
61 of
84)
1st Serve %
54%
(
36 of
67)
8
Aces
3
2
Double Faults
3
69%
(
42 of
61)
1st Serve Won
72%
(
26 of
36)
61%
(
14 of
23)
2nd Serve Won
65%
(
20 of
31)
67%
(
2 of
3)
Break Points Won
13%
(
1 of
8)
33%
(
28 of
84)
Rtn Points Won
31%
(
21 of
67)
77
Total Points Won
74
|
7-5 7-6(3) | H2H | ||
R1 |
Denis Shapovalov
Player
Botic Van De Zandschulp
57%
(
29 of
51)
1st Serve %
56%
(
32 of
57)
8
Aces
3
4
Double Faults
6
79%
(
23 of
29)
1st Serve Won
66%
(
21 of
32)
59%
(
13 of
22)
2nd Serve Won
28%
(
7 of
25)
57%
(
4 of
7)
Break Points Won
25%
(
1 of
4)
29%
(
15 of
51)
Rtn Points Won
51%
(
29 of
57)
65
Total Points Won
43
|
6-1 6-4 | H2H | ||
R2 |
Sebastian Korda
Player
Botic Van De Zandschulp
66%
(
25 of
38)
1st Serve %
58%
(
18 of
31)
10
Aces
2
1
Double Faults
3
88%
(
22 of
25)
1st Serve Won
50%
(
9 of
18)
46%
(
6 of
13)
2nd Serve Won
8%
(
1 of
13)
100%
(
5 of
5)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
26%
(
10 of
38)
Rtn Points Won
68%
(
21 of
31)
49
Total Points Won
20
|
6-1 6-0 | H2H | ||
R1 |
Botic Van De Zandschulp
Player
Adrian Mannarino
63%
(
42 of
67)
1st Serve %
59%
(
41 of
69)
5
Aces
5
3
Double Faults
1
81%
(
34 of
42)
1st Serve Won
73%
(
30 of
41)
52%
(
13 of
25)
2nd Serve Won
43%
(
12 of
28)
75%
(
3 of
4)
Break Points Won
50%
(
2 of
4)
30%
(
20 of
67)
Rtn Points Won
39%
(
27 of
69)
74
Total Points Won
62
|
7-6(3) 7-5 | H2H | ||
R1 |
Gael Monfils
Player
Botic Van De Zandschulp
67%
(
54 of
81)
1st Serve %
68%
(
45 of
66)
2
Aces
1
4
Double Faults
4
70%
(
38 of
54)
1st Serve Won
62%
(
28 of
45)
48%
(
13 of
27)
2nd Serve Won
52%
(
11 of
21)
38%
(
3 of
8)
Break Points Won
13%
(
1 of
8)
37%
(
30 of
81)
Rtn Points Won
41%
(
27 of
66)
78
Total Points Won
69
|
6-1 7-6(9) | H2H | ||
R1 |
Jannik Sinner
Player
Botic Van De Zandschulp
68%
(
32 of
47)
1st Serve %
65%
(
46 of
71)
4
Aces
5
2
Double Faults
1
88%
(
28 of
32)
1st Serve Won
70%
(
32 of
46)
60%
(
9 of
15)
2nd Serve Won
32%
(
8 of
25)
38%
(
3 of
8)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
3)
21%
(
10 of
47)
Rtn Points Won
44%
(
31 of
71)
68
Total Points Won
50
|
6-3 6-3 | H2H | ||
Rubber 5 |
Botic Van De Zandschulp
Player
Marc-Andrea Huesler
78%
(
72 of
92)
1st Serve %
62%
(
64 of
103)
10
Aces
10
1
Double Faults
1
72%
(
52 of
72)
1st Serve Won
73%
(
47 of
64)
65%
(
13 of
20)
2nd Serve Won
49%
(
19 of
39)
33%
(
3 of
9)
Break Points Won
75%
(
3 of
4)
29%
(
27 of
92)
Rtn Points Won
36%
(
37 of
103)
102
Total Points Won
93
|
5-7 7-6(5) 6-3 | H2H | ||
Rubber 2 |
Leandro Riedi
Player
Botic Van De Zandschulp
70%
(
50 of
71)
1st Serve %
54%
(
35 of
65)
2
Aces
8
1
Double Faults
3
70%
(
35 of
50)
1st Serve Won
71%
(
25 of
35)
52%
(
11 of
21)
2nd Serve Won
53%
(
16 of
30)
60%
(
3 of
5)
Break Points Won
33%
(
2 of
6)
35%
(
25 of
71)
Rtn Points Won
37%
(
24 of
65)
70
Total Points Won
66
|
6-4 7-6(3) | H2H | ||
R1 |
Jannik Sinner
Player
Botic Van De Zandschulp
58%
(
51 of
88)
1st Serve %
64%
(
69 of
107)
7
Aces
8
2
Double Faults
2
69%
(
35 of
51)
1st Serve Won
65%
(
45 of
69)
65%
(
24 of
37)
2nd Serve Won
39%
(
15 of
38)
33%
(
5 of
15)
Break Points Won
17%
(
1 of
6)
33%
(
29 of
88)
Rtn Points Won
44%
(
47 of
107)
106
Total Points Won
89
|
6-4 7-5 6-3 | H2H |
view more
Nerman Fatic Recent Matches Played
opponent | Score | H2H | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
R1 |
Ugo Blanchet
Player
Nerman Fatic
59%
(
42 of
71)
1st Serve %
63%
(
32 of
51)
2
Aces
3
1
Double Faults
1
67%
(
28 of
42)
1st Serve Won
69%
(
22 of
32)
62%
(
18 of
29)
2nd Serve Won
42%
(
8 of
19)
75%
(
3 of
4)
Break Points Won
20%
(
1 of
5)
35%
(
25 of
71)
Rtn Points Won
41%
(
21 of
51)
67
Total Points Won
55
|
6-3 6-4 | H2H | ||
R1 |
Dimitar Kuzmanov
Player
Nerman Fatic
66%
(
39 of
59)
1st Serve %
70%
(
52 of
74)
0
Aces
1
1
Double Faults
3
59%
(
23 of
39)
1st Serve Won
58%
(
30 of
52)
70%
(
14 of
20)
2nd Serve Won
36%
(
8 of
22)
31%
(
4 of
13)
Break Points Won
100%
(
1 of
1)
37%
(
22 of
59)
Rtn Points Won
49%
(
36 of
74)
73
Total Points Won
60
|
6-0 7-6(5) | H2H | ||
R2 |
Franco Agamenone
Player
Nerman Fatic
73%
(
66 of
91)
1st Serve %
56%
(
50 of
89)
2
Aces
2
3
Double Faults
1
55%
(
36 of
66)
1st Serve Won
62%
(
31 of
50)
64%
(
16 of
25)
2nd Serve Won
33%
(
13 of
39)
54%
(
7 of
13)
Break Points Won
25%
(
3 of
12)
43%
(
39 of
91)
Rtn Points Won
51%
(
45 of
89)
97
Total Points Won
83
|
4-6 6-3 6-0 | H2H | ||
R1 |
Nerman Fatic
Player
Pablo Llamas Ruiz
69%
(
59 of
86)
1st Serve %
64%
(
63 of
99)
9
Aces
1
2
Double Faults
1
76%
(
45 of
59)
1st Serve Won
59%
(
37 of
63)
48%
(
13 of
27)
2nd Serve Won
47%
(
17 of
36)
55%
(
6 of
11)
Break Points Won
33%
(
2 of
6)
33%
(
28 of
86)
Rtn Points Won
45%
(
45 of
99)
103
Total Points Won
82
|
6-4 6-7(5) 6-0 | H2H | ||
R2 |
Jakub Mensik
Player
Nerman Fatic
64%
(
30 of
47)
1st Serve %
57%
(
28 of
49)
9
Aces
4
2
Double Faults
2
83%
(
25 of
30)
1st Serve Won
71%
(
20 of
28)
71%
(
12 of
17)
2nd Serve Won
43%
(
9 of
21)
75%
(
3 of
4)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
3)
21%
(
10 of
47)
Rtn Points Won
41%
(
20 of
49)
57
Total Points Won
39
|
6-1 6-4 | H2H | ||
R1 |
Nerman Fatic
Player
Goncalo Oliveira
65%
(
56 of
86)
1st Serve %
69%
(
49 of
71)
9
Aces
7
5
Double Faults
0
79%
(
44 of
56)
1st Serve Won
82%
(
40 of
49)
53%
(
16 of
30)
2nd Serve Won
68%
(
15 of
22)
33%
(
1 of
3)
Break Points Won
17%
(
1 of
6)
30%
(
26 of
86)
Rtn Points Won
23%
(
16 of
71)
76
Total Points Won
81
|
7-6(3) 7-6(5) | H2H | ||
Rubber 1 | 3-6 6-3 6-4 | H2H | |||
Q2 |
Terence Atmane
Player
Nerman Fatic
68%
(
76 of
111)
1st Serve %
63%
(
49 of
78)
11
Aces
12
1
Double Faults
3
74%
(
56 of
76)
1st Serve Won
78%
(
38 of
49)
51%
(
18 of
35)
2nd Serve Won
66%
(
19 of
29)
67%
(
2 of
3)
Break Points Won
9%
(
1 of
11)
33%
(
37 of
111)
Rtn Points Won
27%
(
21 of
78)
95
Total Points Won
94
|
6-3 3-6 7-5 | H2H | ||
Q1 |
Nerman Fatic
Player
Illya Marchenko
64%
(
39 of
61)
1st Serve %
56%
(
48 of
85)
9
Aces
4
2
Double Faults
1
79%
(
31 of
39)
1st Serve Won
65%
(
31 of
48)
68%
(
15 of
22)
2nd Serve Won
57%
(
21 of
37)
20%
(
1 of
5)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
25%
(
15 of
61)
Rtn Points Won
39%
(
33 of
85)
79
Total Points Won
67
|
6-4 7-6(5) | H2H | ||
QF |
Denis Yevseyev
Player
Nerman Fatic
61%
(
27 of
44)
1st Serve %
51%
(
30 of
59)
0
Aces
4
1
Double Faults
4
81%
(
22 of
27)
1st Serve Won
57%
(
17 of
30)
65%
(
11 of
17)
2nd Serve Won
41%
(
12 of
29)
44%
(
4 of
9)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
25%
(
11 of
44)
Rtn Points Won
51%
(
30 of
59)
63
Total Points Won
40
|
6-2 6-2 | H2H |
view more