Prediction of Cathleen Farrell vs Emmy Ho Head-to-Head, At

Wojtek Kolan

Wojtek Kolan

HEAD TO HEAD

C. Farrell vs E. Ho

Cathleen Farrell
Cathleen Farrell

Flag USA USA

l
l
w
w
l
l
l
l
l
l
Emmy Ho
Emmy Ho

Flag USA USA

w
l
l
l
l

0

Win

0

Played

0

Win

68
Age
0
-
Height
-
Ret.
C. Rank
Ret.
0
Best Rank
0
0
Total Titles
0
0
YTD Titles
0
$0
Career Money
$0
-
Plays
-

Head-to-head: Farrell 0 - 0 Ho

They have played 2 sets in total, with Cathleen Farrell winning 2 and Emmy Ho winning 0. The last match between Cathleen Farrell and Emmy Ho was at the Erie, 27-07-1981, Round: Q1, Surface: N/A, with Cathleen Farrell getting the victory 6-0 6-3.

PlayersHead To Head Match Wins
Farrell0
Ho0
Last 1 H2H Matches:

(Q1Erie(07-27-81)

N/A
USA Flag
Cathleen Farrell
6
6
USA Flag
Emmy Ho
0
3

C. Farrell vs E. Ho H2H Profile

Stats
$0Career Prize Money$0
20.37% (11-43)Career Total W/L20.00% (1-4)
0% (0-0)YTD Win/Loss0% (0-0)

C. Farrell vs E. Ho Match Preview:

  • Second serve performance recent form: In recent form (last 6 months), Cathleen Farrell has won 0% of points on their second serve, while Emmy Ho has won 0%. There is a high correlation between this stat and match prediction accuracy.
  • Return game stats recent form: Return stats show Cathleen Farrell, in recent form, has won 0% of their opponent's second serve points, while Emmy Ho has won 0%. The same stats for first serve returns are 0% and 0% respectively and this has a high correlation to pick who is favored in this H2H matchup.
  • Under pressure analysis: Cathleen Farrell has saved 0% of breakpoints in recent form, whereas Emmy Ho has saved 0% which is a useful statistic for in-game betting predictions.
  • Performance overview: Over the last year Cathleen Farrell has won 0% of matches played (W/L 0/0), with Emmy Ho winning 0% (W/L 0/0) that gives us an overall head-to head prediction overview.
  • Best surface: Cathleen Farrell has their best career surface win % on Grass, winning 50% (W/L 1/1), and worse career win % on Hard, winning 5% (W/L 1/18). Emmy Ho has their best career surface win % on N/A, winning 50% (W/L 0/1), and worse career win % on Hard, winning 0% (W/L 0/1).
  • Player level: In the last year, Cathleen Farrell has played most of their matches on the N/A, winning 0% of matches (W/L 0/0), where as Emmy Ho has played most of their matches on the N/A, winning 0% of matches (W/L 0/0). 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 Cathleen Farrell winning 1 times and Emmy Ho being victorious 0 times. They have played 2 sets in total, with Cathleen Farrell winning 2 and Emmy Ho winning 0.
  • The last match between Cathleen Farrell and Emmy Ho was at the Erie, 27-07-1981, Round: Q1, Surface: N/A, with Cathleen Farrell getting the victory 6-0 6-3.
  • Head to head match duration: In past head to head matches, the average match time between these players has been 0:0:0.
  • Opponent quality stats: Over the last 12 months, Cathleen Farrell has played against opponents with an average rank of 0 while Emmy Ho has played against players with an average rank of 0.
  • Deciding set performance vs all players: If you are interested in live predictions and betting, if this match goes into a deciding set, Cathleen Farrell has won 0% of deciding sets over the last 12 months, while Emmy Ho has won 0% in all matches played on tour.
  • Break point conversion: In recent form, Cathleen Farrell has converted 0% of breakpoint opportunities, and Emmy Ho 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.

Cathleen Farrell vs Emmy Ho Editorial Preview By TennisTipster88.

C. Farrell vs E. Ho H2H Stats Used In Our Predictions

Stats
1H2H Matches Won0
2Sets Won0
12Games Won3
0:0:0Average Match Time0:0:0
100% (1/1)Best‑of‑3 Win %0% (0/1)
100% (1/1)1st Set Won, Won Match0% (0/0)
0% (0/1)1st Set Won, Lost Match0% (0/0)
0% (0/0)1st Set Lost, Won Match0% (0/1)

Recent Performance Stats

2nd Serve Win %: Farrell 0%, Ho 0%.
Opp 2nd Serve Pts Won: Farrell 0%, Ho 0%.
Break Points Saved %: Farrell 0%, Ho 0%.

C. Farrell Recent Matches Played

OPPONENTRESULTSCOREH2H
N/AUnknown Tournament - 14-07-1986

R3

USAM. Meghani
L
6-1 6-2
N/AUnknown Tournament - 01-07-1985

R3

USAC. Fernandez
L
6-2 6-1
HardKansas City - 19-09-1983

Q2

GBRE. Jones
L
6-2 6-3
HardITF Bethesda - 08-08-1983

R3

USAB. Heidenberger
L
6-3 6-1
ClayIndianapolis - 31-07-1983

Q1

USAH. Manset
L
6-2 6-4

E. Ho Recent Matches Played

OPPONENTRESULTSCOREH2H
N/AErie - 27-07-1981

Q1

USAC. Farrell
L
6-0 6-3
HardTampa - 10-11-1980

Q1

USAG. Oconnor
L
6-0 6-1
ClayHilton Head - 07-04-1980

Q1

BELM. Gurdal
L
6-0 6-0
CarpetRoanoke Futures - 18-02-1980

Q2

JPNM. Matsushima
L
6-0 6-2

Q1

USAH. Hess
W
6-1 6-1
banner

C. Farrell vs E. Ho Stats Breakdown Vs All H2H Opponents

Stats
20.37% (11/43)YTD Win/Loss20.00% (1/4)
26.32% (30/84)Sets Win/Loss20.00% (2/8)
39.78% (401/607)Games Win/Loss26.47% (18/50)
5.26% (1/18)Hard Win/Loss0.00% (0/1)
50.00% (3/3)Clay Win/Loss0.00% (0/1)
33.33% (2/4)Indoor Hard W/L50.00% (1/1)
50.00% (1/1)Grass Win/Loss0% (0/0)
1st MatchAverage Match Time1st Match
146.37Average Opponent Rank0
28.57% (2/5)Challenger W/L50.00% (1/1)
14.29% (1/6)Futures W/L0% (0/0)
21% (11/52)Best of 3 Sets Win %20% (1/5)
20% (2/10)Deciding Set Win %0% (0/0)
67% (15/10)1st Set Won, Won Match100% (1/1)
33% (15/5)1st Set Won, Lost Match0% (1/0)
3% (37/1)1st Set Lost, Won Match0% (4/0)

Other Tennis Predictions Today

Thu, 27 Nov, 11:30 AM
Prediction
UKRA. Brayninq
RUSN. Vylegzhanin
W1
2.18
W2
1.59
Thu, 27 Nov, 10:00 AM
Prediction
SWEE. Ymer1
ROUD. N. Cazacu
W1
1.139
W2
4.8
Thu, 27 Nov, 08:05 AM
Prediction
INDA. V. PaparkarWC
INDR. Mehra
W1
2.84
W2
1.36
Thu, 27 Nov, 11:30 PM
Prediction
CHID. A. NunezWC
ARGF. A. Gomez
W1
3.72
W2
1.222
Thu, 27 Nov, 06:00 PM
Prediction
USAK. Polingq
COLJ. S. Gomezq
W1
1.68
W2
2.03
Fri, 28 Nov, 11:30 AM
Prediction
RSAP. Henning7
AUTS. Kopp2
W1
1.533
W2
2.3