Dane Sweeny vs Kody Pearson Head-to-Head Stats, Results & Performance Comparison
By Wojtek Kolan
Form
W W W L W L W W W L
Form
L L L W W W L L W LHead-to-head: Sweeny 1 - 0 Pearson
They have played 2 sets in total, with Sweeny winning 2 and Pearson winning 0. The last match between Sweeny and Pearson was at the M25 Burnie, 19-02-2025, First, Hard with Dane Sweeny getting the victory 6-0 6-2.
M25 Burnie(19-02-2025)
6
0
6
2
Today’s Tennis Tips:
Draper VS Alcaraz PREDICTION Hard
BNP Paribas Open - Indian Wells atp
15 Mar 2025 / Semifinals
ODDS
PREDICTION
EDGE
Rune VS Medvedev PREDICTION Hard
BNP Paribas Open - Indian Wells atp
14 Mar 2025 / Semifinals
ODDS
PREDICTION
EDGE
| Winning Player | Losing Player | Score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6-0 6-2 |
Stats 
Dane Sweeny
Player
Kody Pearson
69%
(
31 of
45)
1st Serve %
68%
(
41 of
60)
2
Aces
2
0
Double Faults
4
71%
(
22 of
31)
1st Serve Won
56%
(
23 of
41)
64%
(
9 of
14)
2nd Serve Won
21%
(
4 of
19)
36%
(
5 of
14)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
31%
(
14 of
45)
Rtn Points Won
55%
(
33 of
60)
64
Total Points Won
41
|
||||
Stats
1
H2H Matches
0
2
Sets Won
0
12
Games Won
2
2
Aces (Total)
2
0
Total Double Faults
4
1:21:20
Average Match Time
1:21:20
69% (31/45)
1st Serve %
68% (41/60)
71% (22/31)
1st Serve Win %
56% (23/41)
64% (9/14)
2nd Serve Win %
21% (4/19)
36% (5/14)
Break Points Won % (Total)
0% (0/0)
55% (33/60)
Return Points Win %
31% (14/45)
100% (1/1)
Best of 3 Sets Win %
0% (0/1)
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% (1/1)
1st Set Won, Won Match
0% (0/0)
0% (1/0)
1st Set Won, Lost Match
0% (0/0)
0% (0/0)
1st Set Lost, Won Match
0% (1/0)
Currently displayed stats includes matches of all levels. To exclude lower level events (as per ATP / WTA official stats) toggle button in page footer.
Dane Sweeny vs Kody Pearson Important H2H Prediction Stats:
Head-to-head: Dane Sweeny 1 - 0 Kody Pearson
Analyzing Second Serve Performance: Looking at recent form over the past six months, it is evident that there is a slight difference in the second serve performance between Sweeny and Pearson. Sweeny has managed to win 47.86% of points on their second serve, while Pearson's success rate stands at 45.96%. It's worth noting that there is a strong correlation between this particular statistic and the accuracy of match predictions.
Insights on Return Game Stats: Delving deeper into the return game statistics, it becomes apparent that Sweeny, in recent form, has triumphed in 47.29% of their opponent's second serve points. On the other hand, Pearson has excelled in this area with a success rate of 55.06%. In terms of first serve returns, the figures for Sweeny and Pearson are 28.77% and 35.36% respectively. These numbers hold great significance as they aid in determining the favored player in this head-to-head matchup.
Assessing Performance Under Pressure: When under pressure, Sweeny has managed to save 53.03% of breakpoints in recent form. Pearson, on the other hand, has showcased their resilience by saving an impressive 58.43% of breakpoints. Notably, this particular statistic is highly useful when making predictions for in-game betting.
Overall Performance Overview: Looking at the past year, Sweeny has achieved victory in 29.73% of their matches played, boasting a win-loss record of 11/26. Pearson, on the other hand, has secured triumph in 37.14% of matches, showcasing a win-loss record of 13/22. These figures provide an overall prediction overview for their head-to-head encounter.
Taking Surface Performance into Consideration: Analyzing their career statistics, it is evident that Sweeny's most successful surface is Hard, having won 59% of matches (W/L 141/100). Conversely, their performance on Grass is rather lackluster, with only a 25% win rate (W/L 2/6). For Pearson, their most fruitful surface is Grass, with a 55% win rate (W/L 6/5), while their performance on Indoor Hard courts has been less than stellar, achieving a 0% win rate (W/L 0/3).
Examining Player Level: Over the past year, Sweeny has primarily competed in the Challenger and ITF tournaments with a prize pool exceeding $10,000. Within this context, they have achieved victory in 31.25% of their matches (W/L 10/22). In contrast, Pearson has predominantly played in the Futures, Satellites, and ITF tournaments with a prize pool of $10,000. Their success rate stands at 41.38% (W/L 12/17). It is essential to consider the level of competition when comparing players' statistics to predict the favorite in a given event.
Evaluating Opponent Quality: The quality of opponents faced by each player is a crucial aspect. Over the past 12 months, Sweeny has encountered opponents with an average rank of 326.54, while Pearson has faced players with an average rank of 455.49.
Analyzing Deciding Set Performance: In the context of live predictions and betting, if this match were to reach a deciding set, Sweeny has historically won 36% of deciding sets over the past 12 months. Pearson, on the other hand, has achieved a 50% victory rate in all matches played on the tour.
Current Event Head-to-Head Stats: While considering past player performance is valuable in predicting tennis matches, it is equally important to assess current event statistics to gain insight into the form of players. For detailed information on current event performance, please refer to the section below. Additionally, it is worth noting that certain players tend to excel at specific events, which should be taken into account when determining the outcome.
Break Point Conversion Rate: Recent form suggests that Sweeny has successfully converted 35.78% of their breakpoint opportunities, while Pearson has capitalized on 48.24% of chances to break their opponents' serves. This statistic is particularly noteworthy for in-game live betting tips when either player has a breakpoint opportunity.
If you are interested in detailed models for predicting tennis matches, you may find this article a valuable resource. (Warning: Recommended for avid statistics enthusiasts)
Dane Sweeny Recent Matches Played
Before:
| OPPONENT | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SF |
Stats
Omar Jasika
Player
Dane Sweeny
71%
(
52 of
73)
1st Serve %
60%
(
53 of
89)
0
Aces
9
1
Double Faults
1
63%
(
33 of
52)
1st Serve Won
64%
(
34 of
53)
57%
(
12 of
21)
2nd Serve Won
47%
(
17 of
36)
44%
(
4 of
9)
Break Points Won
38%
(
3 of
8)
38%
(
28 of
73)
Rtn Points Won
43%
(
38 of
89)
83
Total Points Won
79
|
7-6(7) 6-4 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Dane Sweeny
Player
Christian Langmo
76%
(
60 of
79)
1st Serve %
75%
(
44 of
59)
9
Aces
6
2
Double Faults
1
77%
(
46 of
60)
1st Serve Won
73%
(
32 of
44)
53%
(
10 of
19)
2nd Serve Won
60%
(
9 of
15)
50%
(
1 of
2)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
8)
29%
(
23 of
79)
Rtn Points Won
31%
(
18 of
59)
74
Total Points Won
64
|
7-6(3) 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Dane Sweeny
Player
Thomas Braithwaite
61%
(
63 of
103)
1st Serve %
75%
(
65 of
87)
6
Aces
5
8
Double Faults
5
70%
(
44 of
63)
1st Serve Won
65%
(
42 of
65)
50%
(
20 of
40)
2nd Serve Won
59%
(
13 of
22)
38%
(
3 of
8)
Break Points Won
29%
(
2 of
7)
38%
(
39 of
103)
Rtn Points Won
37%
(
32 of
87)
96
Total Points Won
94
|
6-4 3-6 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Dane Sweeny
Player
Stefan Storch
67%
(
43 of
64)
1st Serve %
64%
(
54 of
85)
3
Aces
6
3
Double Faults
7
72%
(
31 of
43)
1st Serve Won
65%
(
35 of
54)
48%
(
10 of
21)
2nd Serve Won
35%
(
11 of
31)
42%
(
5 of
12)
Break Points Won
40%
(
2 of
5)
36%
(
23 of
64)
Rtn Points Won
46%
(
39 of
85)
80
Total Points Won
69
|
3-6 6-2 6-1 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Cruz Hewitt
Player
Dane Sweeny
56%
(
57 of
101)
1st Serve %
57%
(
47 of
82)
7
Aces
2
9
Double Faults
4
61%
(
35 of
57)
1st Serve Won
68%
(
32 of
47)
50%
(
22 of
44)
2nd Serve Won
40%
(
14 of
35)
63%
(
5 of
8)
Break Points Won
38%
(
5 of
13)
44%
(
44 of
101)
Rtn Points Won
44%
(
36 of
82)
93
Total Points Won
90
|
3-6 6-4 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Dane Sweeny
Player
Scott Jones
61%
(
54 of
89)
1st Serve %
71%
(
60 of
84)
1
Aces
2
3
Double Faults
4
65%
(
35 of
54)
1st Serve Won
62%
(
37 of
60)
46%
(
16 of
35)
2nd Serve Won
42%
(
10 of
24)
45%
(
5 of
11)
Break Points Won
67%
(
4 of
6)
43%
(
38 of
89)
Rtn Points Won
44%
(
37 of
84)
88
Total Points Won
85
|
3-6 6-4 6-3 | H2H | ||
| SF |
Stats
Jason Murray Kubler
Player
Dane Sweeny
50%
(
43 of
86)
1st Serve %
61%
(
66 of
109)
9
Aces
0
4
Double Faults
5
84%
(
36 of
43)
1st Serve Won
52%
(
34 of
66)
40%
(
17 of
43)
2nd Serve Won
49%
(
21 of
43)
47%
(
7 of
15)
Break Points Won
80%
(
4 of
5)
38%
(
33 of
86)
Rtn Points Won
50%
(
54 of
109)
107
Total Points Won
88
|
6-7(5) 6-3 6-4 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Dane Sweeny
Player
Christian Langmo
69%
(
35 of
51)
1st Serve %
72%
(
38 of
53)
1
Aces
2
2
Double Faults
1
69%
(
24 of
35)
1st Serve Won
55%
(
21 of
38)
69%
(
11 of
16)
2nd Serve Won
60%
(
9 of
15)
44%
(
4 of
9)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
5)
31%
(
16 of
51)
Rtn Points Won
43%
(
23 of
53)
58
Total Points Won
46
|
6-3 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Dane Sweeny
Player
Alexander Klintcharov
68%
(
36 of
53)
1st Serve %
79%
(
50 of
63)
1
Aces
0
0
Double Faults
0
75%
(
27 of
36)
1st Serve Won
62%
(
31 of
50)
71%
(
12 of
17)
2nd Serve Won
62%
(
8 of
13)
43%
(
3 of
7)
Break Points Won
100%
(
1 of
1)
26%
(
14 of
53)
Rtn Points Won
38%
(
24 of
63)
63
Total Points Won
53
|
6-4 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Dane Sweeny
Player
Kody Pearson
69%
(
31 of
45)
1st Serve %
68%
(
41 of
60)
2
Aces
2
0
Double Faults
4
71%
(
22 of
31)
1st Serve Won
56%
(
23 of
41)
64%
(
9 of
14)
2nd Serve Won
21%
(
4 of
19)
36%
(
5 of
14)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
31%
(
14 of
45)
Rtn Points Won
55%
(
33 of
60)
64
Total Points Won
41
|
6-0 6-2 | H2H | ||
view more
Kody Pearson Recent Matches Played
Before:
| OPPONENT | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QF |
Stats
Scott Jones
Player
Kody Pearson
68%
(
51 of
75)
1st Serve %
70%
(
43 of
61)
0
Aces
1
2
Double Faults
2
63%
(
32 of
51)
1st Serve Won
56%
(
24 of
43)
38%
(
9 of
24)
2nd Serve Won
56%
(
10 of
18)
80%
(
4 of
5)
Break Points Won
57%
(
4 of
7)
45%
(
34 of
75)
Rtn Points Won
44%
(
27 of
61)
68
Total Points Won
68
|
6-4 4-6 10-6 | H2H | ||
| Q1 | 6-7(6) 6-1 12-10 | H2H | |||
| R1 |
Stats
Dane Sweeny
Player
Kody Pearson
69%
(
31 of
45)
1st Serve %
68%
(
41 of
60)
2
Aces
2
0
Double Faults
4
71%
(
22 of
31)
1st Serve Won
56%
(
23 of
41)
64%
(
9 of
14)
2nd Serve Won
21%
(
4 of
19)
36%
(
5 of
14)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
31%
(
14 of
45)
Rtn Points Won
55%
(
33 of
60)
64
Total Points Won
41
|
6-0 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Naoki Nakagawa
Player
Kody Pearson
60%
(
49 of
82)
1st Serve %
75%
(
50 of
67)
4
Aces
1
3
Double Faults
5
63%
(
31 of
49)
1st Serve Won
62%
(
31 of
50)
52%
(
17 of
33)
2nd Serve Won
29%
(
5 of
17)
63%
(
5 of
8)
Break Points Won
30%
(
3 of
10)
41%
(
34 of
82)
Rtn Points Won
46%
(
31 of
67)
79
Total Points Won
70
|
6-4 7-5 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Kody Pearson
Player
Keisuke Saitoh
65%
(
34 of
52)
1st Serve %
62%
(
31 of
50)
1
Aces
0
3
Double Faults
3
74%
(
25 of
34)
1st Serve Won
55%
(
17 of
31)
39%
(
7 of
18)
2nd Serve Won
16%
(
3 of
19)
46%
(
6 of
13)
Break Points Won
25%
(
2 of
8)
38%
(
20 of
52)
Rtn Points Won
60%
(
30 of
50)
62
Total Points Won
40
|
6-3 6-1 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Kody Pearson
Player
Adrian Arcon
67%
(
33 of
49)
1st Serve %
71%
(
44 of
62)
0
Aces
4
3
Double Faults
5
64%
(
21 of
33)
1st Serve Won
57%
(
25 of
44)
69%
(
11 of
16)
2nd Serve Won
28%
(
5 of
18)
63%
(
5 of
8)
Break Points Won
67%
(
2 of
3)
35%
(
17 of
49)
Rtn Points Won
52%
(
32 of
62)
64
Total Points Won
47
|
6-3 6-3 | H2H | ||
| Q1 | 6-1 6-1 | H2H | |||
| R1 |
Stats
Arthur Bonnaud
Player
Kody Pearson
54%
(
33 of
61)
1st Serve %
59%
(
42 of
71)
3
Aces
1
2
Double Faults
6
73%
(
24 of
33)
1st Serve Won
67%
(
28 of
42)
57%
(
16 of
28)
2nd Serve Won
31%
(
9 of
29)
50%
(
4 of
8)
Break Points Won
25%
(
1 of
4)
34%
(
21 of
61)
Rtn Points Won
48%
(
34 of
71)
74
Total Points Won
58
|
6-2 7-5 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Evan Zhu
Player
Kody Pearson
72%
(
34 of
47)
1st Serve %
47%
(
17 of
36)
1
Aces
0
1
Double Faults
3
68%
(
23 of
34)
1st Serve Won
29%
(
5 of
17)
69%
(
9 of
13)
2nd Serve Won
42%
(
8 of
19)
83%
(
5 of
6)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
4)
32%
(
15 of
47)
Rtn Points Won
64%
(
23 of
36)
55
Total Points Won
28
|
6-2 6-0 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Emile Hudd
Player
Kody Pearson
66%
(
55 of
83)
1st Serve %
67%
(
64 of
95)
6
Aces
6
4
Double Faults
8
67%
(
37 of
55)
1st Serve Won
72%
(
46 of
64)
39%
(
11 of
28)
2nd Serve Won
32%
(
10 of
31)
31%
(
4 of
13)
Break Points Won
71%
(
5 of
7)
42%
(
35 of
83)
Rtn Points Won
41%
(
39 of
95)
87
Total Points Won
91
|
6-3 1-6 7-6(3) | H2H | ||
view more
Stats Breakdown Vs All H2H Opponents
Stats
55% (174/143)
Win/Loss
50% (119/118)
52% (389/354)
Sets Win/Loss
50% (267/268)
51% (3584/3424)
Games Win/Loss
51% (2536/2450)
59% (145/102)
Hard Win/Loss
54% (91/78)
44% (17/22)
Clay Win/Loss
39% (20/31)
37% (7/12)
Indoor Hard W/L
33% (2/4)
42% (5/7)
Grass Win/Loss
55% (6/5)
0.2
Aces Per Game
0.16
670
Aces Total
382
0.29
Double Faults Per Game
0.26
1001
Total Double Faults
625
1:38:18
Average Match Time
1:3:5
411.52
Average Opponent Rank
366.72
63% (13020/20808)
1st Serve %
61% (5701/9388)
65% (8510/13020)
1st Serve Win %
66% (3775/5701)
51% (3941/7788)
2nd Serve Win %
45% (1656/3687)
43% (910/2102)
Break Points Won % (Total)
42% (374/892)
41% (8252/20357)
Return Points Win %
39% (3619/9240)
47% (7/8)
Slam W/L
0% (0/0)
60% (3/2)
Masters W/L
0% (0/0)
0% (0/0)
Cups W/L
0% (0/0)
43% (3/4)
Main Tour W/L
0% (0/0)
0% (0/0)
Tour Finals W/L
0% (0/0)
42% (49/68)
Challenger W/L
13% (2/13)
65% (112/61)
Futures W/L
53% (117/105)
55% (171/313)
Best of 3 Sets Win %
50% (117/235)
67% (2/3)
Best of 5 Sets Win %
100% (1/1)
50% (41/82)
Tiebreaks Win % (Total)
39% (23/59)
61% (65/106)
Deciding Set Win %
51% (31/61)
88% (151/133)
1st Set Won, Won Match
87% (107/93)
12% (151/18)
1st Set Won, Lost Match
13% (107/14)
25% (166/41)
1st Set Lost, Won Match
20% (130/26)
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]
