Predictions
Matches
Calendar
H2H
Rankings
Picks Blog
Cem Ilkel vs Enzo Wallart 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 Wallart analysis and find out who is favored!
Cem Ilkel vs Enzo Wallart Important H2H Prediction Stats:
- Second serve performance recent form: In recent form (last 6 months), Ilkel has won 45.99% of points on his second serve, while Wallart has won 47.7%. 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 51.49% of his opponent's second serve points, while Wallart has won 55.78%. The same stats for first serve returns are 25.61% and 32.29% respectively and this has a high correlation to pick who is favored in this H2H matchup.
- Under pressure analysis: Ilkel has saved 51.01% of breakpoints in recent form, whereas Wallart has saved 61.72% which is a useful statistic for in-game betting predictions.
- Performance overview: Over the last year Ilkel has won 40% of matches played (W/L 20/ 30), with Wallart winning 56.6% (W/L 30/ 23) 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/ 165), and worse career win % on Grass, winning 10% (W/L 1/ 9). Wallart has their best career surface win % on Clay, winning 57% (W/L 16/ 12), and worse career win % on I.hard, winning 48% (W/L 13/ 14).
- Player level: In the last year, Ilkel has played most of their matches on the Challengers/ITF tournaments > $10K, winning 40% of matches (W/L 12/ 18), where as Wallart has played most of their matches on the Futures/Satellites/ITF tournaments $10K, winning 58.54% of matches (W/L 24/ 17). 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 225.72 while Wallart has played against players with an average rank of 188.23.
- 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 60% of deciding sets over the last 12 months, while Wallart has won 58% in all matches played on tour.
- Break point conversion: In recent form, Ilkel has converted 41.24% of breakpoint opportunities, and Wallart has converted 47.9% 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: Ilkel 0 - 0 Wallart
417
Rank
144
High
28
Age
R
Plays
0
Total0
0
Hard0
0
Clay0
0
Indoor0
0
Grass0
650
Rank
594
High
27
Age
R
Plays
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
Form
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
56% (401-312)
Career Total W/L
55% (102-83)
41% (9-13)
YTD W/L
53% (10-9)
$225,530
Career Prize Money
$0
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.
No H2H Matches Available
Stats Breakdown Vs All H2H Opponents
| stats | Cem Ilkel | Enzo Wallart |
|---|---|---|
| YTD W/L | 41% (9/13) | 53% (10/9) |
| Sets Win/Loss | 40% (19/29) | 55% (23/19) |
| Games Win/Loss | 45% (194/239) | 53% (210/189) |
| Hard Win/Loss | 36% (4/7) | 53% (10/9) |
| Clay Win/Loss | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Indoor Hard W/L | 45% (5/6) | 0% (0/0) |
| Grass Win/Loss | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Aces pg | 0.49 | 0.45 |
| Aces Total | 102 | 88 |
| DFs per game | 0.22 | 0.22 |
| DFs Total | 47 | 43 |
| Avg Match Time | 1:27:22 | 1:54:47 |
| Avg Opp Rank | 171.45 | 129.58 |
| 1st Serve % | 58% (748/1300) | 63% (815/1293) |
| 1st Serve W% | 70% (527/748) | 69% (559/815) |
| 2nd Serve W% | 47% (257/552) | 48% (228/478) |
| BPs Won% Total | 40% (37/93) | 48% (57/119) |
| Return Pts W% | 36% (452/1257) | 41% (510/1252) |
| 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 | 50% (7/7) | 50% (2/2) |
| Futures W/L | 29% (2/5) | 53% (8/7) |
| Best of 3 Sets W% | 38% (8/21) | 59% (10/17) |
| Best of 5 Sets W% | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| TBs Win% (Total) | 80% (4/5) | 50% (3/6) |
| Deciding Set W% | 60% (3/5) | 50% (3/6) |
| 1st set W, W | 78% (9/7) | 100% (9/9) |
| 1st set W, L | 22% (9/2) | 0% (9/0) |
| 1st set L, W | 15% (13/2) | 10% (10/1) |
Cem Ilkel Recent Matches Played
Before:
| opponent | Score | 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 | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Otto Virtanen
Player
Cem Ilkel
62%
(
21 of
34)
1st Serve %
60%
(
28 of
47)
11
Aces
1
6
Double Faults
3
100%
(
21 of
21)
1st Serve Won
54%
(
15 of
28)
38%
(
5 of
13)
2nd Serve Won
21%
(
4 of
19)
60%
(
6 of
10)
Break Points Won
100%
(
1 of
1)
24%
(
8 of
34)
Rtn Points Won
60%
(
28 of
47)
54
Total Points Won
27
|
6-2 6-1 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Cem Ilkel
Player
Johan Nikles
51%
(
25 of
49)
1st Serve %
54%
(
30 of
56)
2
Aces
0
3
Double Faults
5
68%
(
17 of
25)
1st Serve Won
53%
(
16 of
30)
54%
(
13 of
24)
2nd Serve Won
23%
(
6 of
26)
46%
(
6 of
13)
Break Points Won
50%
(
2 of
4)
39%
(
19 of
49)
Rtn Points Won
61%
(
34 of
56)
64
Total Points Won
41
|
6-0 6-3 | H2H | ||
view more
Enzo Wallart Recent Matches Played
Before:
| opponent | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 |
Stats
Enzo Wallart
Player
Mitchell Harper
65%
(
44 of
68)
1st Serve %
56%
(
30 of
54)
9
Aces
7
1
Double Faults
2
77%
(
34 of
44)
1st Serve Won
63%
(
19 of
30)
50%
(
12 of
24)
2nd Serve Won
58%
(
14 of
24)
67%
(
2 of
3)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
2)
32%
(
22 of
68)
Rtn Points Won
39%
(
21 of
54)
67
Total Points Won
55
|
6-3 6-4 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Max Wiskandt
Player
Enzo Wallart
78%
(
64 of
82)
1st Serve %
70%
(
55 of
79)
-
Aces
-
2
Double Faults
1
63%
(
40 of
64)
1st Serve Won
58%
(
32 of
55)
50%
(
9 of
18)
2nd Serve Won
42%
(
10 of
24)
60%
(
6 of
10)
Break Points Won
57%
(
4 of
7)
40%
(
33 of
82)
Rtn Points Won
47%
(
37 of
79)
86
Total Points Won
75
|
6-4 3-6 6-1 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Enzo Wallart
Player
Niklas Schell
79%
(
44 of
56)
1st Serve %
52%
(
24 of
46)
4
Aces
9
3
Double Faults
4
73%
(
32 of
44)
1st Serve Won
71%
(
17 of
24)
42%
(
5 of
12)
2nd Serve Won
41%
(
9 of
22)
67%
(
4 of
6)
Break Points Won
50%
(
1 of
2)
34%
(
19 of
56)
Rtn Points Won
43%
(
20 of
46)
57
Total Points Won
45
|
6-1 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Enzo Wallart
Player
James Beaven
67%
(
55 of
82)
1st Serve %
64%
(
51 of
80)
3
Aces
8
3
Double Faults
3
73%
(
40 of
55)
1st Serve Won
65%
(
33 of
51)
59%
(
16 of
27)
2nd Serve Won
34%
(
10 of
29)
63%
(
5 of
8)
Break Points Won
40%
(
2 of
5)
32%
(
26 of
82)
Rtn Points Won
46%
(
37 of
80)
93
Total Points Won
69
|
5-7 6-1 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Paul Jubb
Player
Enzo Wallart
67%
(
16 of
24)
1st Serve %
63%
(
15 of
24)
3
Aces
0
2
Double Faults
2
94%
(
15 of
16)
1st Serve Won
40%
(
6 of
15)
38%
(
3 of
8)
2nd Serve Won
33%
(
3 of
9)
60%
(
3 of
5)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
2)
25%
(
6 of
24)
Rtn Points Won
63%
(
15 of
24)
33
Total Points Won
15
|
6-0 1-1 ret. | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Enzo Wallart
Player
Toby Martin
70%
(
96 of
138)
1st Serve %
65%
(
84 of
129)
9
Aces
7
3
Double Faults
2
67%
(
64 of
96)
1st Serve Won
73%
(
61 of
84)
52%
(
22 of
42)
2nd Serve Won
47%
(
21 of
45)
22%
(
2 of
9)
Break Points Won
27%
(
3 of
11)
38%
(
52 of
138)
Rtn Points Won
36%
(
47 of
129)
133
Total Points Won
134
|
7-6(5) 5-7 7-6(1) | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Giles Hussey
Player
Enzo Wallart
81%
(
50 of
62)
1st Serve %
58%
(
36 of
62)
8
Aces
5
2
Double Faults
3
70%
(
35 of
50)
1st Serve Won
64%
(
23 of
36)
33%
(
4 of
12)
2nd Serve Won
35%
(
9 of
26)
40%
(
4 of
10)
Break Points Won
67%
(
2 of
3)
37%
(
23 of
62)
Rtn Points Won
48%
(
30 of
62)
69
Total Points Won
55
|
7-6(5) 6-1 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Jack Loge
Player
Enzo Wallart
61%
(
33 of
54)
1st Serve %
60%
(
46 of
77)
2
Aces
4
6
Double Faults
4
73%
(
24 of
33)
1st Serve Won
67%
(
31 of
46)
38%
(
8 of
21)
2nd Serve Won
29%
(
9 of
31)
36%
(
5 of
14)
Break Points Won
50%
(
4 of
8)
41%
(
22 of
54)
Rtn Points Won
48%
(
37 of
77)
69
Total Points Won
62
|
6-4 5-6 ret. | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Enzo Wallart
Player
Pietro Pampanin
56%
(
25 of
45)
1st Serve %
59%
(
30 of
51)
8
Aces
6
1
Double Faults
0
76%
(
19 of
25)
1st Serve Won
60%
(
18 of
30)
75%
(
15 of
20)
2nd Serve Won
38%
(
8 of
21)
50%
(
4 of
8)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
3)
24%
(
11 of
45)
Rtn Points Won
49%
(
25 of
51)
59
Total Points Won
37
|
6-1 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Nikoloz Basilashvili
Player
Enzo Wallart
54%
(
25 of
46)
1st Serve %
56%
(
38 of
68)
2
Aces
4
0
Double Faults
3
80%
(
20 of
25)
1st Serve Won
66%
(
25 of
38)
67%
(
14 of
21)
2nd Serve Won
37%
(
11 of
30)
36%
(
4 of
11)
Break Points Won
33%
(
1 of
3)
26%
(
12 of
46)
Rtn Points Won
47%
(
32 of
68)
66
Total Points Won
48
|
6-3 6-3 | H2H | ||
view more
Ilkel Vs Wallart Prediction H2H Images To Share
Potential H2H Matches This Week For Enzo Wallart
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]
