Predictions
Matches
Calendar
H2H
Rankings
Picks Blog
Cem Ilkel vs Chun Hsin Tseng 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 Tseng analysis and find out who is favored!
Cem Ilkel vs Chun Hsin Tseng Important H2H Prediction Stats:
- Second serve performance recent form: In recent form (last 6 months), Ilkel has won 47.74% of points on his second serve, while Tseng has won 51.2%. 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 51.79% of his opponent's second serve points, while Tseng has won 51.69%. The same stats for first serve returns are 25.31% and 30.37% respectively and this has a high correlation to pick who is favored in this H2H matchup.
- Under pressure analysis: Ilkel has saved 53.85% of breakpoints in recent form, whereas Tseng has saved 62.37% which is a useful statistic for in-game betting predictions.
- Performance overview: Over the last year Ilkel has won 39.58% of matches played (W/L 19/ 29), with Tseng winning 53.7% (W/L 29/ 25) 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 254/ 162), and worse career win % on Grass, winning 10% (W/L 1/ 9). Tseng has their best career surface win % on Clay, winning 61% (W/L 97/ 61), and worse career win % on Grass, winning 0% (W/L 0/ 3).
- 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 Tseng has played most of their matches on the Challengers/ITF tournaments > $10K, winning 54.55% of matches (W/L 24/ 20). 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 Ilkel winning 1 times. They have played 2 sets in total, with Ilkel winning 2 and Tseng winning 0. The last match between Ilkel and Tseng was at the Potchefstroom 2 Challenger, 18-02-2021, Second, Hard with Cem Ilkel getting the victory .
- Head to head match duration: In past head to head matches, the average match time between these players has been 1:45:15.
- Deciding set H2H prediction: Ilkel and Tseng have played a deciding set 0 times, with Ilkel winning 0 times and Tseng 0 times. Very useful for predicting the outcome if this match goes the distance.
- Head-to-Head extreme pressure situations: They have played 1 tiebreaks against each other with Ilkel winning 1, and Tseng 0.
- Opponent quality stats: Over the last 12 months, Ilkel has played against opponents with an average rank of 236.83 while Tseng has played against players with an average rank of 340.96.
- 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 50% of deciding sets over the last 12 months, while Tseng has won 64% in all matches played on tour.
- Break point conversion: In recent form, Ilkel has converted 44.76% of breakpoint opportunities, and Tseng has converted 43.58% 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 1 - 0 Tseng
415
Rank
144
High
28
Age
R
Plays
1
Total0
1
Hard0
0
Clay0
0
Indoor0
0
Grass0
250
Rank
83
High
22
Age
R
Plays
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
Form
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
56% (400-309)
Career Total W/L
59% (209-143)
44% (8-10)
YTD W/L
59% (16-11)
$225,530
Career Prize Money
$180,215
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.
| stats | Cem Ilkel | Chun Hsin Tseng |
|---|---|---|
| All H2H Matches | 1 | 0 |
| Sets Won | 2 | 0 |
| Games Won | 14 | 11 |
| Aces (Total) | 7 | 3 |
| DFs (Total) | 3 | 2 |
| Avg Match Time | 1:45:15 | 1:45:15 |
| 1st Serve % | 52% (38/73) | 54% (40/74) |
| 1st Serve Win% | 71% (27/38) | 65% (26/40) |
| 2nd Serve Win% | 54% (19/35) | 50% (17/34) |
| BPs Won% (Total) | 67% (4/6) | 43% (3/7) |
| Return Points W% | 42% (31/74) | 37% (27/73) |
| 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) | 100% (1/1) | 0% (0/1) |
| 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) |
| Winning Player | Losing Player | Score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7-6(3) 7-5 |
Stats 
Cem Ilkel
Player
Chun Hsin Tseng
52%
(
38 of
73)
1st Serve %
54%
(
40 of
74)
7
Aces
3
3
Double Faults
2
71%
(
27 of
38)
1st Serve Won
65%
(
26 of
40)
54%
(
19 of
35)
2nd Serve Won
50%
(
17 of
34)
67%
(
4 of
6)
Break Points Won
43%
(
3 of
7)
37%
(
27 of
73)
Rtn Points Won
42%
(
31 of
74)
77
Total Points Won
70
|
||||
Stats Breakdown Vs All H2H Opponents
| stats | Cem Ilkel | Chun Hsin Tseng |
|---|---|---|
| YTD W/L | 44% (8/10) | 59% (16/11) |
| Sets Win/Loss | 43% (17/23) | 52% (33/30) |
| Games Win/Loss | 46% (165/195) | 51% (306/295) |
| Hard Win/Loss | 43% (3/4) | 46% (6/7) |
| Clay Win/Loss | 0% (0/0) | 77% (10/3) |
| Indoor Hard W/L | 45% (5/6) | 0% (0/1) |
| Grass Win/Loss | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Aces pg | 0.54 | 0.29 |
| Aces Total | 94 | 86 |
| DFs per game | 0.24 | 0.28 |
| DFs Total | 42 | 82 |
| Avg Match Time | 1:28:14 | 1:51:42 |
| Avg Opp Rank | 162.39 | 334.89 |
| 1st Serve % | 57% (616/1073) | 53% (1041/1955) |
| 1st Serve W% | 72% (442/616) | 70% (726/1041) |
| 2nd Serve W% | 46% (210/457) | 51% (468/914) |
| BPs Won% Total | 43% (32/74) | 44% (78/179) |
| Return Pts W% | 36% (378/1044) | 39% (753/1920) |
| 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% (0/1) |
| 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) | 62% (16/10) |
| Futures W/L | 33% (1/2) | 0% (0/0) |
| Best of 3 Sets W% | 41% (7/17) | 58% (15/26) |
| Best of 5 Sets W% | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| TBs Win% (Total) | 80% (4/5) | 44% (4/9) |
| Deciding Set W% | 60% (3/5) | 80% (8/10) |
| 1st set W, W | 75% (8/6) | 100% (12/12) |
| 1st set W, L | 25% (8/2) | 0% (12/0) |
| 1st set L, W | 20% (10/2) | 27% (15/4) |
Cem Ilkel Recent Matches Played
Before:
| opponent | Score | 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 | ||
| QF |
Stats
Cem Ilkel
Player
Illya Marchenko
61%
(
46 of
76)
1st Serve %
59%
(
53 of
90)
10
Aces
7
1
Double Faults
3
76%
(
35 of
46)
1st Serve Won
74%
(
39 of
53)
60%
(
18 of
30)
2nd Serve Won
46%
(
17 of
37)
33%
(
1 of
3)
Break Points Won
33%
(
1 of
3)
30%
(
23 of
76)
Rtn Points Won
38%
(
34 of
90)
87
Total Points Won
79
|
7-6(6) 7-6(2) | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Cem Ilkel
Player
Kyle Edmund
55%
(
56 of
102)
1st Serve %
55%
(
54 of
98)
12
Aces
3
6
Double Faults
5
80%
(
45 of
56)
1st Serve Won
70%
(
38 of
54)
41%
(
19 of
46)
2nd Serve Won
48%
(
21 of
44)
43%
(
3 of
7)
Break Points Won
25%
(
3 of
12)
37%
(
38 of
102)
Rtn Points Won
40%
(
39 of
98)
103
Total Points Won
97
|
3-6 7-6(5) 6-2 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Arthur Bouquier
Player
Cem Ilkel
71%
(
40 of
56)
1st Serve %
59%
(
42 of
71)
13
Aces
4
3
Double Faults
2
88%
(
35 of
40)
1st Serve Won
67%
(
28 of
42)
50%
(
8 of
16)
2nd Serve Won
55%
(
16 of
29)
33%
(
2 of
6)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
2)
23%
(
13 of
56)
Rtn Points Won
38%
(
27 of
71)
70
Total Points Won
57
|
6-4 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Gastao Elias
Player
Cem Ilkel
60%
(
62 of
103)
1st Serve %
60%
(
52 of
87)
6
Aces
8
1
Double Faults
2
66%
(
41 of
62)
1st Serve Won
73%
(
38 of
52)
49%
(
20 of
41)
2nd Serve Won
37%
(
13 of
35)
45%
(
5 of
11)
Break Points Won
57%
(
4 of
7)
41%
(
42 of
103)
Rtn Points Won
41%
(
36 of
87)
97
Total Points Won
93
|
3-6 6-1 7-6(6) | H2H | ||
view more
Chun Hsin Tseng Recent Matches Played
Before:
| opponent | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2 |
Stats
Jaime Faria
Player
Chun Hsin Tseng
52%
(
28 of
54)
1st Serve %
52%
(
28 of
54)
3
Aces
2
3
Double Faults
3
71%
(
20 of
28)
1st Serve Won
75%
(
21 of
28)
65%
(
17 of
26)
2nd Serve Won
38%
(
10 of
26)
80%
(
4 of
5)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
4)
31%
(
17 of
54)
Rtn Points Won
43%
(
23 of
54)
60
Total Points Won
48
|
6-2 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Chun Hsin Tseng
Player
Quentin Halys
56%
(
72 of
129)
1st Serve %
52%
(
48 of
93)
0
Aces
7
2
Double Faults
3
64%
(
46 of
72)
1st Serve Won
73%
(
35 of
48)
58%
(
33 of
57)
2nd Serve Won
51%
(
23 of
45)
57%
(
4 of
7)
Break Points Won
19%
(
3 of
16)
39%
(
50 of
129)
Rtn Points Won
38%
(
35 of
93)
114
Total Points Won
108
|
4-6 7-6(3) 6-2 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Chun Hsin Tseng
Player
Tristan Lamasine
50%
(
26 of
52)
1st Serve %
55%
(
24 of
44)
0
Aces
1
1
Double Faults
3
69%
(
18 of
26)
1st Serve Won
54%
(
13 of
24)
50%
(
13 of
26)
2nd Serve Won
25%
(
5 of
20)
83%
(
5 of
6)
Break Points Won
50%
(
2 of
4)
40%
(
21 of
52)
Rtn Points Won
59%
(
26 of
44)
57
Total Points Won
39
|
6-3 6-2 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Chun Hsin Tseng
Player
Joao Domingues
54%
(
31 of
57)
1st Serve %
57%
(
41 of
72)
2
Aces
2
0
Double Faults
2
77%
(
24 of
31)
1st Serve Won
63%
(
26 of
41)
69%
(
18 of
26)
2nd Serve Won
52%
(
16 of
31)
43%
(
3 of
7)
Break Points Won
100%
(
2 of
2)
26%
(
15 of
57)
Rtn Points Won
42%
(
30 of
72)
72
Total Points Won
57
|
6-3 7-6(3) | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Jacopo Berrettini
Player
Chun Hsin Tseng
63%
(
62 of
99)
1st Serve %
53%
(
43 of
81)
0
Aces
0
3
Double Faults
3
61%
(
38 of
62)
1st Serve Won
51%
(
22 of
43)
43%
(
16 of
37)
2nd Serve Won
53%
(
20 of
38)
45%
(
5 of
11)
Break Points Won
33%
(
4 of
12)
45%
(
45 of
99)
Rtn Points Won
48%
(
39 of
81)
93
Total Points Won
87
|
7-6(6) 7-5 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Ivan Gakhov
Player
Chun Hsin Tseng
58%
(
49 of
84)
1st Serve %
59%
(
51 of
87)
11
Aces
2
3
Double Faults
4
76%
(
37 of
49)
1st Serve Won
78%
(
40 of
51)
71%
(
25 of
35)
2nd Serve Won
44%
(
16 of
36)
29%
(
2 of
7)
Break Points Won
20%
(
1 of
5)
26%
(
22 of
84)
Rtn Points Won
36%
(
31 of
87)
93
Total Points Won
78
|
6-4 3-6 6-3 | H2H | ||
| F |
Stats
Chun Hsin Tseng
Player
Titouan Droguet
33%
(
4 of
12)
1st Serve %
52%
(
11 of
21)
2
Aces
0
0
Double Faults
2
100%
(
4 of
4)
1st Serve Won
55%
(
6 of
11)
75%
(
6 of
8)
2nd Serve Won
40%
(
4 of
10)
67%
(
2 of
3)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
17%
(
2 of
12)
Rtn Points Won
52%
(
11 of
21)
21
Total Points Won
12
|
4-1 ret. | H2H | ||
| SF |
Stats
Chun Hsin Tseng
Player
Francesco Maestrelli
49%
(
49 of
99)
1st Serve %
58%
(
56 of
97)
0
Aces
7
3
Double Faults
4
73%
(
36 of
49)
1st Serve Won
75%
(
42 of
56)
54%
(
27 of
50)
2nd Serve Won
44%
(
18 of
41)
22%
(
2 of
9)
Break Points Won
29%
(
2 of
7)
36%
(
36 of
99)
Rtn Points Won
38%
(
37 of
97)
100
Total Points Won
96
|
3-6 6-4 6-4 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Chun Hsin Tseng
Player
Matteo Martineau
59%
(
51 of
87)
1st Serve %
63%
(
64 of
101)
5
Aces
7
2
Double Faults
5
69%
(
35 of
51)
1st Serve Won
70%
(
45 of
64)
56%
(
20 of
36)
2nd Serve Won
35%
(
13 of
37)
38%
(
5 of
13)
Break Points Won
44%
(
4 of
9)
37%
(
32 of
87)
Rtn Points Won
43%
(
43 of
101)
98
Total Points Won
90
|
6-4 4-6 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Chun Hsin Tseng
Player
Samuel Vincent Ruggeri
55%
(
49 of
89)
1st Serve %
60%
(
44 of
73)
2
Aces
8
4
Double Faults
2
65%
(
32 of
49)
1st Serve Won
75%
(
33 of
44)
58%
(
23 of
40)
2nd Serve Won
45%
(
13 of
29)
38%
(
3 of
8)
Break Points Won
33%
(
2 of
6)
38%
(
34 of
89)
Rtn Points Won
37%
(
27 of
73)
82
Total Points Won
80
|
2-6 6-2 6-3 | H2H | ||
view more
Ilkel Vs Tseng 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 support@matchstat.com
