Predictions
Matches
Calendar
H2H
Rankings
Picks Blog
Cem Ilkel vs Charles Broom 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 Ilkel vs Broom analysis and find out who is favored!
Cem Ilkel vs Charles Broom Important H2H Prediction Stats:
Head-to-head: Ilkel 0 - 0 Broom
- Second serve performance recent form: In recent form (last 6 months), Ilkel has won 46.81% of points on their second serve, while Broom has won 52.02%. There is a high correlation between this stat and match prediction accuracy.
- Return game stats recent form: Return stats show Ilkel, in recent form, has won 51.04% of their opponent's second serve points, while Broom has won 56.1%. The same stats for first serve returns are 25.26% and 31.13% respectively and this has a high correlation to pick who is favored in this H2H matchup.
- Under pressure analysis: Ilkel has saved 51.72% of breakpoints in recent form, whereas Broom has saved 64.23% which is a useful statistic for in-game betting predictions.
- Performance overview: Over the last year Ilkel has won 39.22% of matches played (W/L 20/ 31), with Broom winning 60.24% (W/L 50/ 33) that gives us an overall head-to head prediction overview.
- Best surface: Ilkel has their best career surface win % on Hard, winning 61% (W/L 255/ 166), and worse career win % on Grass, winning 10% (W/L 1/ 9). Broom has their best career surface win % on Clay, winning 67% (W/L 44/ 22), and worse career win % on Grass, winning 57% (W/L 17/ 13).
- Player level: In the last year, Ilkel has played most of their matches on the Challengers/ITF tournaments > $10K, winning 37.5% of matches (W/L 12/ 20), where as Broom has played most of their matches on the Futures/Satellites/ITF tournaments $10K, winning 68.89% of matches (W/L 31/ 14). 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, Ilkel has played against opponents with an average rank of 224.16 while Broom has played against players with an average rank of 220.45.
- Deciding set performance vs all players: If you are interested in live predictions and betting, if this match goes into a deciding set, Ilkel has won 55% of deciding sets over the last 12 months, while Broom has won 58% in all matches played on tour.
- Break point conversion: In recent form, Ilkel has converted 40.43% of breakpoint opportunities, and Broom has converted 37.01% of their chances to break their opponents serve. A telling stat for in-game live betting tips when either player has a breakpoint opportunity.
412
Rank
144
High
28
Age
R
Plays
0
Total0
0
Hard0
0
Clay0
0
Indoor0
0
Grass0
284
Rank
284
High
26
Age
R
Plays
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
Form
L
W
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
56% (401-314)
Career Total W/L
63% (206-120)
38% (9-15)
YTD W/L
60% (21-14)
$225,530
Career Prize Money
$36,000
0
YTD Titles
1
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 | Cem Ilkel | Charles Broom |
|---|---|---|
| YTD W/L | 38% (9/15) | 60% (21/14) |
| Sets Win/Loss | 38% (20/33) | 57% (48/36) |
| Games Win/Loss | 44% (213/269) | 52% (415/385) |
| Hard Win/Loss | 33% (4/8) | 67% (14/7) |
| Clay Win/Loss | 0% (0/1) | 0% (0/0) |
| Indoor Hard W/L | 45% (5/6) | 54% (7/6) |
| Grass Win/Loss | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/1) |
| Aces pg | 0.49 | 0.54 |
| Aces Total | 114 | 213 |
| DFs per game | 0.22 | 0.22 |
| DFs Total | 51 | 87 |
| Avg Match Time | 1:29:14 | 1:51:16 |
| Avg Opp Rank | 173.04 | 204.71 |
| 1st Serve % | 57% (843/1469) | 64% (1599/2491) |
| 1st Serve W% | 69% (585/843) | 70% (1125/1599) |
| 2nd Serve W% | 47% (293/626) | 52% (464/892) |
| BPs Won% Total | 40% (38/94) | 37% (104/281) |
| Return Pts W% | 35% (487/1386) | 41% (1092/2693) |
| Slam W/L | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Masters W/L | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Cups W/L | 0% (0/1) | 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 | 44% (7/9) | 43% (6/8) |
| Futures W/L | 29% (2/5) | 71% (15/6) |
| Best of 3 Sets W% | 35% (8/23) | 60% (21/35) |
| Best of 5 Sets W% | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| TBs Win% (Total) | 83% (5/6) | 64% (7/11) |
| Deciding Set W% | 50% (3/6) | 57% (8/14) |
| 1st set W, W | 70% (10/7) | 84% (19/16) |
| 1st set W, L | 30% (10/3) | 16% (19/3) |
| 1st set L, W | 14% (14/2) | 31% (16/5) |
Cem Ilkel Recent Matches Played
Before:
| opponent | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 |
Stats 
Gastao Elias
Player
Cem Ilkel
71%
(
29 of
41)
1st Serve %
68%
(
38 of
56)
3
Aces
1
0
Double Faults
0
83%
(
24 of
29)
1st Serve Won
50%
(
19 of
38)
75%
(
9 of
12)
2nd Serve Won
50%
(
9 of
18)
50%
(
4 of
8)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
20%
(
8 of
41)
Rtn Points Won
50%
(
28 of
56)
61
Total Points Won
36
|
6-4 6-1 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Altug Celikbilek
Player
Cem Ilkel
72%
(
63 of
88)
1st Serve %
50%
(
57 of
113)
7
Aces
11
2
Double Faults
4
79%
(
50 of
63)
1st Serve Won
68%
(
39 of
57)
44%
(
11 of
25)
2nd Serve Won
48%
(
27 of
56)
57%
(
4 of
7)
Break Points Won
100%
(
1 of
1)
31%
(
27 of
88)
Rtn Points Won
42%
(
47 of
113)
108
Total Points Won
93
|
6-7(5) 6-4 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Aleksandre Bakshi
Player
Cem Ilkel
69%
(
33 of
48)
1st Serve %
56%
(
38 of
68)
1
Aces
2
2
Double Faults
2
79%
(
26 of
33)
1st Serve Won
63%
(
24 of
38)
53%
(
8 of
15)
2nd Serve Won
47%
(
14 of
30)
36%
(
4 of
11)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
4)
29%
(
14 of
48)
Rtn Points Won
44%
(
30 of
68)
64
Total Points Won
52
|
6-4 6-1 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Emile Hudd
Player
Cem Ilkel
74%
(
29 of
39)
1st Serve %
55%
(
24 of
44)
2
Aces
1
0
Double Faults
2
79%
(
23 of
29)
1st Serve Won
54%
(
13 of
24)
70%
(
7 of
10)
2nd Serve Won
30%
(
6 of
20)
83%
(
5 of
6)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
3)
23%
(
9 of
39)
Rtn Points Won
57%
(
25 of
44)
55
Total Points Won
28
|
6-0 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Cem Ilkel
Player
Joe Tyler
64%
(
38 of
59)
1st Serve %
75%
(
46 of
61)
3
Aces
1
1
Double Faults
0
76%
(
29 of
38)
1st Serve Won
61%
(
28 of
46)
71%
(
15 of
21)
2nd Serve Won
60%
(
9 of
15)
43%
(
3 of
7)
Break Points Won
50%
(
1 of
2)
25%
(
15 of
59)
Rtn Points Won
39%
(
24 of
61)
68
Total Points Won
52
|
7-5 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Ali Habib
Player
Cem Ilkel
62%
(
40 of
65)
1st Serve %
57%
(
32 of
56)
4
Aces
2
1
Double Faults
0
68%
(
27 of
40)
1st Serve Won
59%
(
19 of
32)
44%
(
11 of
25)
2nd Serve Won
50%
(
12 of
24)
67%
(
4 of
6)
Break Points Won
40%
(
2 of
5)
42%
(
27 of
65)
Rtn Points Won
45%
(
25 of
56)
63
Total Points Won
58
|
6-4 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Matthew Hulme
Player
Cem Ilkel
71%
(
50 of
70)
1st Serve %
66%
(
49 of
74)
11
Aces
5
1
Double Faults
2
74%
(
37 of
50)
1st Serve Won
69%
(
34 of
49)
50%
(
10 of
20)
2nd Serve Won
44%
(
11 of
25)
75%
(
3 of
4)
Break Points Won
29%
(
2 of
7)
33%
(
23 of
70)
Rtn Points Won
39%
(
29 of
74)
76
Total Points Won
68
|
1-6 6-3 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Petr Nesterov
Player
Cem Ilkel
71%
(
36 of
51)
1st Serve %
51%
(
23 of
45)
9
Aces
4
0
Double Faults
3
81%
(
29 of
36)
1st Serve Won
74%
(
17 of
23)
67%
(
10 of
15)
2nd Serve Won
45%
(
10 of
22)
60%
(
3 of
5)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
2)
24%
(
12 of
51)
Rtn Points Won
40%
(
18 of
45)
57
Total Points Won
39
|
6-3 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Cem Ilkel
Player
Yousef Khamis
47%
(
34 of
72)
1st Serve %
61%
(
39 of
64)
9
Aces
9
8
Double Faults
5
82%
(
28 of
34)
1st Serve Won
69%
(
27 of
39)
50%
(
19 of
38)
2nd Serve Won
48%
(
12 of
25)
100%
(
3 of
3)
Break Points Won
40%
(
2 of
5)
35%
(
25 of
72)
Rtn Points Won
39%
(
25 of
64)
72
Total Points Won
64
|
6-4 7-6(4) | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Michael Agwi
Player
Cem Ilkel
64%
(
28 of
44)
1st Serve %
48%
(
19 of
40)
5
Aces
1
2
Double Faults
1
75%
(
21 of
28)
1st Serve Won
47%
(
9 of
19)
63%
(
10 of
16)
2nd Serve Won
33%
(
7 of
21)
71%
(
5 of
7)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
1)
30%
(
13 of
44)
Rtn Points Won
60%
(
24 of
40)
55
Total Points Won
29
|
6-0 6-2 | H2H | ||
view more
Charles Broom Recent Matches Played
Before:
| opponent | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 |
Stats
Paul Jubb
Player
Charles Broom
53%
(
35 of
66)
1st Serve %
61%
(
37 of
61)
2
Aces
2
5
Double Faults
2
77%
(
27 of
35)
1st Serve Won
62%
(
23 of
37)
52%
(
16 of
31)
2nd Serve Won
38%
(
9 of
24)
40%
(
4 of
10)
Break Points Won
14%
(
1 of
7)
35%
(
23 of
66)
Rtn Points Won
48%
(
29 of
61)
72
Total Points Won
55
|
6-2 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Daniil Glinka
Player
Charles Broom
61%
(
31 of
51)
1st Serve %
60%
(
26 of
43)
5
Aces
2
1
Double Faults
3
94%
(
29 of
31)
1st Serve Won
62%
(
16 of
26)
45%
(
9 of
20)
2nd Serve Won
59%
(
10 of
17)
50%
(
3 of
6)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
1)
25%
(
13 of
51)
Rtn Points Won
40%
(
17 of
43)
55
Total Points Won
39
|
6-2 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Charles Broom
Player
Roberto Cid Subervi
67%
(
39 of
58)
1st Serve %
60%
(
34 of
57)
11
Aces
2
1
Double Faults
1
82%
(
32 of
39)
1st Serve Won
68%
(
23 of
34)
47%
(
9 of
19)
2nd Serve Won
35%
(
8 of
23)
80%
(
4 of
5)
Break Points Won
20%
(
1 of
5)
29%
(
17 of
58)
Rtn Points Won
46%
(
26 of
57)
67
Total Points Won
48
|
6-3 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Blake Mott
Player
Charles Broom
60%
(
49 of
82)
1st Serve %
60%
(
52 of
86)
2
Aces
5
6
Double Faults
2
73%
(
36 of
49)
1st Serve Won
71%
(
37 of
52)
45%
(
15 of
33)
2nd Serve Won
47%
(
16 of
34)
60%
(
3 of
5)
Break Points Won
38%
(
3 of
8)
38%
(
31 of
82)
Rtn Points Won
38%
(
33 of
86)
84
Total Points Won
84
|
6-3 1-6 6-4 | H2H | ||
| F |
Stats
Charles Broom
Player
Henry Searle
70%
(
33 of
47)
1st Serve %
62%
(
44 of
71)
4
Aces
1
0
Double Faults
1
79%
(
26 of
33)
1st Serve Won
55%
(
24 of
44)
57%
(
8 of
14)
2nd Serve Won
48%
(
13 of
27)
40%
(
4 of
10)
Break Points Won
50%
(
1 of
2)
28%
(
13 of
47)
Rtn Points Won
48%
(
34 of
71)
68
Total Points Won
50
|
6-3 6-3 | H2H | ||
| SF |
Stats
Charles Broom
Player
Blake Mott
73%
(
38 of
52)
1st Serve %
73%
(
43 of
59)
4
Aces
3
1
Double Faults
3
66%
(
25 of
38)
1st Serve Won
53%
(
23 of
43)
57%
(
8 of
14)
2nd Serve Won
31%
(
5 of
16)
50%
(
5 of
10)
Break Points Won
100%
(
2 of
2)
37%
(
19 of
52)
Rtn Points Won
53%
(
31 of
59)
64
Total Points Won
47
|
6-4 6-2 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Charles Broom
Player
Robert Strombachs
60%
(
39 of
65)
1st Serve %
77%
(
48 of
62)
3
Aces
2
3
Double Faults
1
79%
(
31 of
39)
1st Serve Won
65%
(
31 of
48)
46%
(
12 of
26)
2nd Serve Won
36%
(
5 of
14)
50%
(
3 of
6)
Break Points Won
17%
(
1 of
6)
34%
(
22 of
65)
Rtn Points Won
42%
(
26 of
62)
69
Total Points Won
58
|
6-4 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Charles Broom
Player
Alexis Canter
72%
(
39 of
54)
1st Serve %
61%
(
36 of
59)
5
Aces
2
2
Double Faults
2
72%
(
28 of
39)
1st Serve Won
56%
(
20 of
36)
67%
(
10 of
15)
2nd Serve Won
43%
(
10 of
23)
44%
(
4 of
9)
Break Points Won
50%
(
1 of
2)
30%
(
16 of
54)
Rtn Points Won
49%
(
29 of
59)
67
Total Points Won
46
|
6-1 7-5 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Charles Broom
Player
Alex Knaff
59%
(
53 of
90)
1st Serve %
60%
(
52 of
87)
4
Aces
2
4
Double Faults
2
60%
(
32 of
53)
1st Serve Won
65%
(
34 of
52)
65%
(
24 of
37)
2nd Serve Won
54%
(
19 of
35)
36%
(
4 of
11)
Break Points Won
25%
(
3 of
12)
38%
(
34 of
90)
Rtn Points Won
39%
(
34 of
87)
90
Total Points Won
87
|
3-6 6-4 6-3 | H2H | ||
| F |
Stats
Paul Jubb
Player
Charles Broom
73%
(
66 of
90)
1st Serve %
69%
(
63 of
91)
5
Aces
8
1
Double Faults
0
68%
(
45 of
66)
1st Serve Won
67%
(
42 of
63)
38%
(
9 of
24)
2nd Serve Won
39%
(
11 of
28)
29%
(
4 of
14)
Break Points Won
20%
(
2 of
10)
40%
(
36 of
90)
Rtn Points Won
42%
(
38 of
91)
92
Total Points Won
89
|
3-6 6-2 6-3 | H2H | ||
view more
Ilkel Vs Broom Prediction H2H Images To Share
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]
