Prediction of Carolyn Campana [831st] vs Grace Piper [] Head-to-Head At The 1970
By Wojtek Kolan
Form
W W W L L W L W L L
Form
L L L L W L W L W LH2H: Campana 2 - 0 Piper
They have played 4 sets in total, with Campana winning 4 and Piper winning 0. The last match between Campana and Piper was at the W35 Roehampton, 29-07-2024, Q3, Hard with Carolyn Campana getting the victory 6-1 6-3.
| Players | Head-To-Head Match Wins |
|---|---|
| Carolyn Campana | 2 |
| Grace Piper | 0 |
Recent Performance Stats (Last 6 Months)
| Winning Player | Losing Player | Score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6-1 6-3 |
Stats 
Carolyn Campana
Player
Grace Piper
75%
(
46 of
61)
1st Serve %
66%
(
35 of
53)
3
Aces
1
2
Double Faults
2
65%
(
30 of
46)
1st Serve Won
43%
(
15 of
35)
53%
(
8 of
15)
2nd Serve Won
50%
(
9 of
18)
56%
(
5 of
9)
Break Points Won
11%
(
1 of
9)
38%
(
23 of
61)
Rtn Points Won
55%
(
29 of
53)
67
Total Points Won
47
|
||||
| 6-4 7-5 | |||||
| Stats | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2 | H2H Matches | 0 |
| 4 | Sets Won | 0 |
| 25 | Games Won | 13 |
| 3 | Aces (Total) | 1 |
| 2 | Total Double Faults | 2 |
| 0:43:30 | Average Match Time | 0:43:30 |
| 75% (46/61) | 1st Serve % | 66% (35/53) |
| 65% (30/46) | 1st Serve Win % | 43% (15/35) |
| 53% (8/15) | 2nd Serve Win % | 50% (9/18) |
| 56% (5/9) | Break Points Won % (Total) | 11% (1/9) |
| 55% (29/53) | Return Points Win % | 38% (23/61) |
| 100% (2/2) | Best of 3 Sets Win % | 0% (0/2) |
| 0% (0/0) | Best of 5 Sets Win % | 0% (0/0) |
| 0% (0/0) | Tiebreaks Win % (Total) | 0% (0/0) |
| 0% (0/0) | Deciding Set Win % | 0% (0/0) |
| 100% (2/2) | 1st Set Won, Won Match | 0% (0/0) |
| 0% (2/0) | 1st Set Won, Lost Match | 0% (0/0) |
| 0% (0/0) | 1st Set Lost, Won Match | 0% (2/0) |
Currently displayed stats includes matches of all levels. To exclude lower level events (as per ATP / WTA official stats) toggle button in page footer.
Carolyn Campana vs Grace Piper Important H2H Prediction Stats:
Head-to-head: Campana 2 - 0 Piper
- Second serve performance recent form: In recent form (last 6 months), Campana has won 35.48% of points on their second serve, while Piper has won 0%. There is a high correlation between this stat and match prediction accuracy.
- Return game stats recent form: Return stats show Campana, in recent form, has won 56.6% of their opponent's second serve points, while Piper has won 0%. The same stats for first serve returns are 29.05% and 0% respectively and this has a high correlation to pick who is favored in this H2H matchup.
- Under pressure analysis: Campana has saved 51.72% of breakpoints in recent form, whereas Piper has saved 0% which is a useful statistic for in-game betting predictions.
- Performance overview: Over the last year Campana has won 57.69% of matches played (W/L 15/ 11), with Piper winning 50% (W/L 3/ 3) that gives us an overall head-to head prediction overview.
- Best surface: Campana has their best career surface win % on Hard, winning 52% (W/L 24/ 22), and worse career win % on Clay, winning 17% (W/L 1/ 5). Piper has their best career surface win % on Hard, winning 38% (W/L 6/ 10), and worse career win % on I.hard, winning 0% (W/L 0/ 3).
- Player level: In the last year, Campana has played most of their matches on the Challengers/ITF tournaments > $10K, winning 58.82% of matches (W/L 10/ 7), where as Piper has played most of their matches on the Challengers/ITF tournaments > $10K, winning 50% of matches (W/L 3/ 3). 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 2 times before with Campana winning 2 times and Piper being victorious 0 times. They have played 4 sets in total, with Campana winning 4 and Piper winning 0. The last match between Campana and Piper was at the W35 Roehampton, 29-07-2024, Q3, Hard with Carolyn Campana getting the victory 6-1 6-3.
- Head to head match duration: In past head to head matches, the average match time between these players has been 0:43:30.
- Deciding set H2H prediction: Campana and Piper have played a deciding set 0 times, with Campana winning 0 times and Piper 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 Campana winning 0, and Piper 0.
- Opponent quality stats: Over the last 12 months, Campana has played against opponents with an average rank of 152.77 while Piper has played against players with an average rank of 202.33.
- Deciding set performance vs all players: If you are interested in live predictions and betting, if this match goes into a deciding set, Campana has won 50% of deciding sets over the last 12 months, while Piper has won 50% in all matches played on tour.
- Current event H2H stats: Past player performance is very useful in predicting tennis matches, but once an event is under way we should also look at current event stats for in form player indication, so check the section below (if they have played a match in the current event). Some players also perform better at certain events and this should be taken into account when picking the outcome.
- Break point conversion: In recent form, Campana has converted 59.38% of breakpoint opportunities, and Piper has converted 0% 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)
Carolyn Campana vs Grace Piper Best Odds For The Match
Carolyn Campana Recent Matches Played
Before:
| OPPONENT | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 |
Stats
Kristina Liutova
Player
Carolyn Campana
53%
(
61 of
115)
1st Serve %
72%
(
77 of
107)
3
Aces
1
7
Double Faults
3
59%
(
36 of
61)
1st Serve Won
58%
(
45 of
77)
33%
(
18 of
54)
2nd Serve Won
23%
(
7 of
30)
50%
(
9 of
18)
Break Points Won
63%
(
10 of
16)
53%
(
61 of
115)
Rtn Points Won
51%
(
55 of
107)
109
Total Points Won
113
|
7-5 2-6 7-6(10) | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Sohyun Park
Player
Carolyn Campana
62%
(
46 of
74)
1st Serve %
64%
(
49 of
77)
2
Aces
1
2
Double Faults
2
80%
(
37 of
46)
1st Serve Won
59%
(
29 of
49)
50%
(
14 of
28)
2nd Serve Won
50%
(
14 of
28)
50%
(
5 of
10)
Break Points Won
67%
(
2 of
3)
31%
(
23 of
74)
Rtn Points Won
44%
(
34 of
77)
85
Total Points Won
66
|
4-6 6-2 6-1 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Carolyn Campana
Player
Sara Svetac
64%
(
56 of
87)
1st Serve %
66%
(
58 of
88)
3
Aces
6
4
Double Faults
3
73%
(
41 of
56)
1st Serve Won
67%
(
39 of
58)
45%
(
14 of
31)
2nd Serve Won
40%
(
12 of
30)
80%
(
4 of
5)
Break Points Won
50%
(
3 of
6)
37%
(
32 of
87)
Rtn Points Won
42%
(
37 of
88)
92
Total Points Won
84
|
3-6 6-3 6-4 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Jasmijn Gimbrere
Player
Carolyn Campana
62%
(
56 of
90)
1st Serve %
79%
(
74 of
94)
8
Aces
1
5
Double Faults
0
68%
(
38 of
56)
1st Serve Won
61%
(
45 of
74)
41%
(
14 of
34)
2nd Serve Won
35%
(
7 of
20)
31%
(
5 of
16)
Break Points Won
57%
(
4 of
7)
42%
(
38 of
90)
Rtn Points Won
45%
(
42 of
94)
94
Total Points Won
90
|
6-3 3-6 6-4 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Carolyn Campana
Player
Juliette Lorthios-Guilledroit
65%
(
22 of
34)
1st Serve %
48%
(
15 of
31)
2
Aces
1
1
Double Faults
1
86%
(
19 of
22)
1st Serve Won
47%
(
7 of
15)
75%
(
9 of
12)
2nd Serve Won
25%
(
4 of
16)
56%
(
5 of
9)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
18%
(
6 of
34)
Rtn Points Won
65%
(
20 of
31)
48
Total Points Won
17
|
6-0 6-1 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Unknown Player
Player
Carolyn Campana
62%
(
36 of
58)
1st Serve %
64%
(
43 of
67)
2
Aces
1
1
Double Faults
2
58%
(
21 of
36)
1st Serve Won
51%
(
22 of
43)
59%
(
13 of
22)
2nd Serve Won
33%
(
8 of
24)
46%
(
6 of
13)
Break Points Won
25%
(
2 of
8)
41%
(
24 of
58)
Rtn Points Won
55%
(
37 of
67)
71
Total Points Won
54
|
6-3 6-1 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Gabriela Andrea Knutson
Player
Carolyn Campana
52%
(
23 of
44)
1st Serve %
54%
(
31 of
57)
2
Aces
0
2
Double Faults
3
70%
(
16 of
23)
1st Serve Won
42%
(
13 of
31)
62%
(
13 of
21)
2nd Serve Won
38%
(
10 of
26)
86%
(
6 of
7)
Break Points Won
20%
(
1 of
5)
34%
(
15 of
44)
Rtn Points Won
60%
(
34 of
57)
63
Total Points Won
38
|
6-3 6-0 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Carolyn Campana
Player
Katrina Scott
80%
(
73 of
91)
1st Serve %
53%
(
63 of
118)
1
Aces
1
1
Double Faults
3
63%
(
46 of
73)
1st Serve Won
63%
(
40 of
63)
44%
(
8 of
18)
2nd Serve Won
47%
(
26 of
55)
28%
(
5 of
18)
Break Points Won
60%
(
3 of
5)
41%
(
37 of
91)
Rtn Points Won
44%
(
52 of
118)
106
Total Points Won
103
|
4-6 6-4 6-3 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Carolyn Campana
Player
Veronica Miroshnichenko
62%
(
39 of
63)
1st Serve %
42%
(
26 of
62)
0
Aces
3
1
Double Faults
5
62%
(
24 of
39)
1st Serve Won
58%
(
15 of
26)
58%
(
14 of
24)
2nd Serve Won
39%
(
14 of
36)
50%
(
5 of
10)
Break Points Won
29%
(
2 of
7)
40%
(
25 of
63)
Rtn Points Won
53%
(
33 of
62)
71
Total Points Won
54
|
6-4 6-2 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Carolyn Campana
Player
Emily Deming
74%
(
68 of
92)
1st Serve %
62%
(
41 of
66)
2
Aces
1
3
Double Faults
5
59%
(
40 of
68)
1st Serve Won
56%
(
23 of
41)
33%
(
8 of
24)
2nd Serve Won
40%
(
10 of
25)
75%
(
6 of
8)
Break Points Won
36%
(
5 of
14)
48%
(
44 of
92)
Rtn Points Won
50%
(
33 of
66)
81
Total Points Won
77
|
7-6(6) 6-4 | H2H | ||
view more
Grace Piper Recent Matches Played
Before:
| OPPONENT | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QF |
Stats
Yeon Woo Ku
Player
Grace Piper
75%
(
44 of
59)
1st Serve %
62%
(
37 of
60)
-
Aces
-
3
Double Faults
2
61%
(
27 of
44)
1st Serve Won
62%
(
23 of
37)
60%
(
9 of
15)
2nd Serve Won
43%
(
10 of
23)
67%
(
4 of
6)
Break Points Won
100%
(
3 of
3)
39%
(
23 of
59)
Rtn Points Won
45%
(
27 of
60)
63
Total Points Won
56
|
4-6 6-2 10-7 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Grace Piper
Player
Mayuka Aikawa
63%
(
35 of
56)
1st Serve %
78%
(
28 of
36)
3
Aces
1
2
Double Faults
2
77%
(
27 of
35)
1st Serve Won
54%
(
15 of
28)
52%
(
11 of
21)
2nd Serve Won
25%
(
2 of
8)
100%
(
4 of
4)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
4)
32%
(
18 of
56)
Rtn Points Won
53%
(
19 of
36)
57
Total Points Won
35
|
6-3 6-0 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Carolyn Campana
Player
Grace Piper
75%
(
46 of
61)
1st Serve %
66%
(
35 of
53)
3
Aces
1
2
Double Faults
2
65%
(
30 of
46)
1st Serve Won
43%
(
15 of
35)
53%
(
8 of
15)
2nd Serve Won
50%
(
9 of
18)
56%
(
5 of
9)
Break Points Won
11%
(
1 of
9)
38%
(
23 of
61)
Rtn Points Won
55%
(
29 of
53)
67
Total Points Won
47
|
6-1 6-3 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Grace Piper
Player
Emma Wilson
58%
(
37 of
64)
1st Serve %
67%
(
32 of
48)
6
Aces
7
1
Double Faults
1
57%
(
21 of
37)
1st Serve Won
66%
(
21 of
32)
74%
(
20 of
27)
2nd Serve Won
38%
(
6 of
16)
80%
(
4 of
5)
Break Points Won
33%
(
2 of
6)
36%
(
23 of
64)
Rtn Points Won
44%
(
21 of
48)
62
Total Points Won
50
|
6-4 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Sarah Beth Grey
Player
Grace Piper
67%
(
33 of
49)
1st Serve %
72%
(
38 of
53)
6
Aces
0
0
Double Faults
2
85%
(
28 of
33)
1st Serve Won
61%
(
23 of
38)
50%
(
8 of
16)
2nd Serve Won
40%
(
6 of
15)
80%
(
4 of
5)
Break Points Won
50%
(
1 of
2)
27%
(
13 of
49)
Rtn Points Won
45%
(
24 of
53)
60
Total Points Won
42
|
6-2 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Grace Piper
Player
Naiktha Bains
72%
(
97 of
135)
1st Serve %
58%
(
61 of
106)
1
Aces
7
3
Double Faults
5
58%
(
56 of
97)
1st Serve Won
74%
(
45 of
61)
50%
(
19 of
38)
2nd Serve Won
31%
(
14 of
45)
36%
(
5 of
14)
Break Points Won
23%
(
5 of
22)
44%
(
60 of
135)
Rtn Points Won
44%
(
47 of
106)
122
Total Points Won
119
|
3-6 7-5 6-4 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Emma Wilson
Player
Grace Piper
68%
(
49 of
72)
1st Serve %
65%
(
36 of
55)
2
Aces
2
4
Double Faults
3
63%
(
31 of
49)
1st Serve Won
58%
(
21 of
36)
35%
(
8 of
23)
2nd Serve Won
47%
(
9 of
19)
56%
(
5 of
9)
Break Points Won
56%
(
5 of
9)
46%
(
33 of
72)
Rtn Points Won
45%
(
25 of
55)
64
Total Points Won
63
|
6-3 3-6 10-8 | H2H | ||
| Q1 | 6-4 7-5 | H2H | |||
| Q1 |
Stats
Talia Neilson Gatenby
Player
Grace Piper
38%
(
17 of
45)
1st Serve %
57%
(
30 of
53)
1
Aces
0
4
Double Faults
3
88%
(
15 of
17)
1st Serve Won
53%
(
16 of
30)
43%
(
12 of
28)
2nd Serve Won
30%
(
7 of
23)
50%
(
6 of
12)
Break Points Won
67%
(
2 of
3)
40%
(
18 of
45)
Rtn Points Won
57%
(
30 of
53)
57
Total Points Won
41
|
6-2 6-3 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Amelia Rajecki
Player
Grace Piper
64%
(
55 of
86)
1st Serve %
62%
(
37 of
60)
12
Aces
3
1
Double Faults
2
71%
(
39 of
55)
1st Serve Won
57%
(
21 of
37)
42%
(
13 of
31)
2nd Serve Won
35%
(
8 of
23)
67%
(
4 of
6)
Break Points Won
25%
(
3 of
12)
40%
(
34 of
86)
Rtn Points Won
52%
(
31 of
60)
83
Total Points Won
63
|
5-7 6-1 10-3 | H2H | ||
view more
Where To Watch Campana vs Piper?
When the match starts we will have live scores and stats on this page. For live streaming at TV channels of this match, see our ATP and WTA worldwide viewing pages. Free trial live streaming of Campana Vs Piper is now available here.
Stats Breakdown Vs All H2H Opponents
| Stats | ||
|---|---|---|
| 48% (31/34) | Win/Loss | 32% (6/13) |
| 48% (69/74) | Sets Win/Loss | 36% (16/28) |
| 50% (654/659) | Games Win/Loss | 44% (188/243) |
| 0.06 | Aces Per Game | 0.13 |
| 41 | Aces Total | 27 |
| 0.14 | Double Faults Per Game | 0.24 |
| 87 | Total Double Faults | 51 |
| 1:15:1 | Average Match Time | 1:22:37 |
| 147 | Average Opponent Rank | 269.16 |
| 71% (2057/2890) | 1st Serve % | 62% (737/1189) |
| 58% (1187/2057) | 1st Serve Win % | 58% (428/737) |
| 45% (374/833) | 2nd Serve Win % | 44% (198/452) |
| 47% (185/391) | Break Points Won % (Total) | 49% (56/115) |
| 46% (1389/3009) | Return Points Win % | 41% (459/1117) |
| 48% (31/65) | Best of 3 Sets Win % | 32% (6/19) |
| 0% (0/0) | Best of 5 Sets Win % | 0% (0/0) |
| 42% (5/12) | Tiebreaks Win % (Total) | 67% (2/3) |
| 46% (6/13) | Deciding Set Win % | 33% (2/6) |
| 96% (27/26) | 1st Set Won, Won Match | 67% (6/4) |
| 4% (27/1) | 1st Set Won, Lost Match | 33% (6/2) |
| 13% (38/5) | 1st Set Lost, Won Match | 15% (13/2) |
Other Predictions
Today's Tennis Prediction News :
- Loading news...
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]
