Daniel Michalski vs Nerman Fatic 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 Michalski vs Fatic analysis and find out who is favored!
Daniel Michalski vs Nerman Fatic Important H2H Prediction Stats:
Head-to-head: Michalski 1 - 0 Fatic
- Second serve performance recent form: In recent form (last 6 months), Michalski has won 50.66% of points on their second serve, while Fatic has won 49.5%. There is a high correlation between this stat and match prediction accuracy.
- Return game stats recent form: Return stats show Michalski, in recent form, has won 52.08% of their opponent's second serve points, while Fatic has won 44.6%. The same stats for first serve returns are 33.88% and 32.34% respectively and this has a high correlation to pick who is favored in this H2H matchup.
- Under pressure analysis: Michalski has saved 59.41% of breakpoints in recent form, whereas Fatic has saved 59.42% which is a useful statistic for in-game betting predictions.
- Performance overview: Over the last year Michalski has won 54.1% of matches played (W/L 33/ 28), with Fatic winning 53.73% (W/L 36/ 31) that gives us an overall head-to head prediction overview.
- Best surface: Michalski has their best career surface win % on Clay, winning 65% (W/L 182/ 96), and worse career win % on I.hard, winning 45% (W/L 5/ 6). Fatic has their best career surface win % on Clay, winning 59% (W/L 282/ 193), and worse career win % on Grass, winning 0% (W/L 0/ 1).
- Player level: In the last year, Michalski has played most of their matches on the Challengers/ITF tournaments > $10K, winning 42.11% of matches (W/L 16/ 22), where as Fatic has played most of their matches on the Challengers/ITF tournaments > $10K, winning 52.27% of matches (W/L 23/ 21). 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 Michalski winning 1 times and Fatic being victorious 0 times. They have played 2 sets in total, with Michalski winning 2 and Fatic winning 0. The last match between Michalski and Fatic was at the Zadar Challenger, 24-03-2022, Second, Clay with Daniel Michalski getting the victory 7-5 6-1.
- Head to head match duration: In past head to head matches, the average match time between these players has been 1:40:7.
- Deciding set H2H prediction: Michalski and Fatic have played a deciding set 0 times, with Michalski winning 0 times and Fatic 0 times. Very useful for predicting the outcome if this match goes the distance.
- Head-to-Head extreme pressure situations: They have played 0 tiebreaks against each other with Michalski winning 0, and Fatic 0.
- Opponent quality stats: Over the last 12 months, Michalski has played against opponents with an average rank of 256.51 while Fatic has played against players with an average rank of 279.18.
- Deciding set performance vs all players: If you are interested in live predictions and betting, if this match goes into a deciding set, Michalski has won 40% of deciding sets over the last 12 months, while Fatic has won 48% in all matches played on tour.
- Break point conversion: In recent form, Michalski has converted 46.91% of breakpoint opportunities, and Fatic has converted 38.66% of their chances to break their opponents serve. A telling stat for in-game live betting tips when either player has a breakpoint opportunity.
11
Total
0
Mast
0
Chall
0
Slam
0
Main
11
Minor
363
Rank
243
High
24
Age
R
Plays
1
Total0
0
Hard0
1
Clay0
0
Indoor0
0
Grass0
220
Rank
191
High
29
Age
R
Plays
8
Total
0
Mast
2
Chall
0
Slam
0
Main
6
Minor
Form
62% (215-132)
Career Total W/L
57% (342-256)
50% (15-15)
YTD W/L
41% (9-13)
$0
Career Prize Money
$73,995
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.
stats | Daniel Michalski | Nerman Fatic |
---|---|---|
All H2H Matches | 1 | 0 |
Sets Won | 2 | 0 |
Games Won | 13 | 6 |
Aces (Total) | 1 | 0 |
DFs (Total) | 0 | 5 |
Avg Match Time | 1:40:7 | 1:40:7 |
1st Serve % | 64% (38/59) | 64% (36/56) |
1st Serve Win% | 63% (24/38) | 56% (20/36) |
2nd Serve Win% | 67% (14/21) | 35% (7/20) |
BPs Won% (Total) | 38% (5/13) | 67% (2/3) |
Return Points W% | 52% (29/56) | 36% (21/59) |
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) | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
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 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
7-5 6-1 |
Daniel Michalski
Player
Nerman Fatic
64%
(
38 of
59)
1st Serve %
64%
(
36 of
56)
1
Aces
0
0
Double Faults
5
63%
(
24 of
38)
1st Serve Won
56%
(
20 of
36)
67%
(
14 of
21)
2nd Serve Won
35%
(
7 of
20)
38%
(
5 of
13)
Break Points Won
67%
(
2 of
3)
36%
(
21 of
59)
Rtn Points Won
52%
(
29 of
56)
67
Total Points Won
48
|
Stats Breakdown Vs All H2H Opponents
stats | Daniel Michalski | Nerman Fatic |
---|---|---|
YTD W/L | 50% (15/15) | 41% (9/13) |
Sets Win/Loss | 50% (34/34) | 45% (23/28) |
Games Win/Loss | 49% (317/326) | 48% (232/255) |
Hard Win/Loss | 14% (1/6) | 50% (3/3) |
Clay Win/Loss | 60% (12/8) | 33% (5/10) |
Indoor Hard W/L | 67% (2/1) | 100% (1/0) |
Grass Win/Loss | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
Aces pg | 0.14 | 0.41 |
Aces Total | 43 | 96 |
DFs per game | 0.21 | 0.19 |
DFs Total | 66 | 45 |
Avg Match Time | 1:54:25 | 1:39:2 |
Avg Opp Rank | 330.8 | 309.73 |
1st Serve % | 61% (1340/2179) | 65% (920/1421) |
1st Serve W% | 63% (842/1340) | 68% (626/920) |
2nd Serve W% | 51% (425/839) | 50% (248/501) |
BPs Won% Total | 47% (91/194) | 39% (46/119) |
Return Pts W% | 41% (856/2087) | 37% (531/1449) |
Slam W/L | 0% (0/0) | 33% (1/2) |
Masters W/L | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/1) |
Cups W/L | 0% (0/0) | 100% (1/0) |
Main Tour W/L | 0% (0/0) | 50% (1/1) |
Tour Finals W/L | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
Challenger W/L | 43% (10/13) | 40% (6/9) |
Futures W/L | 71% (5/2) | 0% (0/0) |
Best of 3 Sets W% | 50% (15/30) | 43% (9/21) |
Best of 5 Sets W% | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/1) |
TBs Win% (Total) | 70% (7/10) | 50% (4/8) |
Deciding Set W% | 50% (4/8) | 33% (2/6) |
1st set W, W | 88% (17/15) | 73% (11/8) |
1st set W, L | 12% (17/2) | 27% (11/3) |
1st set L, W | 0% (13/0) | 9% (11/1) |
Daniel Michalski Recent Matches Played
opponent | Score | H2H | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
R2 |
Lucas Gerch
Player
Daniel Michalski
51%
(
40 of
79)
1st Serve %
63%
(
61 of
97)
4
Aces
1
3
Double Faults
1
80%
(
32 of
40)
1st Serve Won
62%
(
38 of
61)
54%
(
21 of
39)
2nd Serve Won
53%
(
19 of
36)
36%
(
4 of
11)
Break Points Won
50%
(
2 of
4)
33%
(
26 of
79)
Rtn Points Won
41%
(
40 of
97)
93
Total Points Won
83
|
3-6 6-3 6-2 | H2H | ||
R1 |
Daniel Michalski
Player
August Holmgren
69%
(
37 of
54)
1st Serve %
61%
(
35 of
57)
1
Aces
1
3
Double Faults
7
65%
(
24 of
37)
1st Serve Won
57%
(
20 of
35)
59%
(
10 of
17)
2nd Serve Won
27%
(
6 of
22)
63%
(
5 of
8)
Break Points Won
20%
(
1 of
5)
37%
(
20 of
54)
Rtn Points Won
54%
(
31 of
57)
65
Total Points Won
46
|
6-2 6-2 | H2H | ||
Q1 |
Kyle Edmund
Player
Daniel Michalski
45%
(
35 of
77)
1st Serve %
57%
(
45 of
79)
4
Aces
4
7
Double Faults
6
63%
(
22 of
35)
1st Serve Won
60%
(
27 of
45)
50%
(
21 of
42)
2nd Serve Won
32%
(
11 of
34)
36%
(
5 of
14)
Break Points Won
50%
(
3 of
6)
44%
(
34 of
77)
Rtn Points Won
52%
(
41 of
79)
84
Total Points Won
72
|
6-4 6-4 | H2H | ||
QF |
Jakub Paul
Player
Daniel Michalski
58%
(
25 of
43)
1st Serve %
65%
(
49 of
75)
0
Aces
1
1
Double Faults
3
76%
(
19 of
25)
1st Serve Won
49%
(
24 of
49)
39%
(
7 of
18)
2nd Serve Won
31%
(
8 of
26)
44%
(
7 of
16)
Break Points Won
50%
(
2 of
4)
40%
(
17 of
43)
Rtn Points Won
57%
(
43 of
75)
69
Total Points Won
49
|
6-2 6-1 | H2H | ||
Q1 |
Daniel Michalski
Player
Norbert Gombos
54%
(
44 of
81)
1st Serve %
56%
(
44 of
79)
0
Aces
3
1
Double Faults
6
66%
(
29 of
44)
1st Serve Won
66%
(
29 of
44)
59%
(
22 of
37)
2nd Serve Won
43%
(
15 of
35)
63%
(
5 of
8)
Break Points Won
38%
(
3 of
8)
37%
(
30 of
81)
Rtn Points Won
44%
(
35 of
79)
86
Total Points Won
74
|
6-4 3-6 6-1 | H2H | ||
QF |
David Pichler
Player
Daniel Michalski
68%
(
55 of
81)
1st Serve %
51%
(
25 of
49)
2
Aces
2
3
Double Faults
4
64%
(
35 of
55)
1st Serve Won
68%
(
17 of
25)
58%
(
15 of
26)
2nd Serve Won
38%
(
9 of
24)
57%
(
4 of
7)
Break Points Won
11%
(
1 of
9)
38%
(
31 of
81)
Rtn Points Won
47%
(
23 of
49)
73
Total Points Won
57
|
6-1 6-4 | H2H | ||
Q1 |
Daniel Michalski
Player
Branko Djuric
48%
(
31 of
64)
1st Serve %
56%
(
37 of
66)
1
Aces
6
2
Double Faults
2
71%
(
22 of
31)
1st Serve Won
65%
(
24 of
37)
73%
(
24 of
33)
2nd Serve Won
48%
(
14 of
29)
50%
(
3 of
6)
Break Points Won
17%
(
1 of
6)
28%
(
18 of
64)
Rtn Points Won
42%
(
28 of
66)
74
Total Points Won
56
|
6-3 7-5 | H2H | ||
QF |
Marcello Serafini
Player
Daniel Michalski
64%
(
54 of
84)
1st Serve %
73%
(
63 of
86)
0
Aces
3
2
Double Faults
1
61%
(
33 of
54)
1st Serve Won
59%
(
37 of
63)
50%
(
15 of
30)
2nd Serve Won
52%
(
12 of
23)
44%
(
4 of
9)
Break Points Won
50%
(
3 of
6)
43%
(
36 of
84)
Rtn Points Won
43%
(
37 of
86)
85
Total Points Won
85
|
6-3 1-6 6-2 | H2H | ||
R2 |
Daniel Michalski
Player
Luigi Sorrentino
75%
(
33 of
44)
1st Serve %
52%
(
25 of
48)
0
Aces
1
0
Double Faults
6
73%
(
24 of
33)
1st Serve Won
60%
(
15 of
25)
55%
(
6 of
11)
2nd Serve Won
26%
(
6 of
23)
56%
(
5 of
9)
Break Points Won
100%
(
1 of
1)
32%
(
14 of
44)
Rtn Points Won
56%
(
27 of
48)
57
Total Points Won
35
|
6-2 6-2 | H2H | ||
R1 |
Daniel Michalski
Player
Dax Donders
50%
(
31 of
62)
1st Serve %
56%
(
28 of
50)
1
Aces
2
3
Double Faults
1
65%
(
20 of
31)
1st Serve Won
50%
(
14 of
28)
71%
(
22 of
31)
2nd Serve Won
59%
(
13 of
22)
75%
(
3 of
4)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
5)
32%
(
20 of
62)
Rtn Points Won
46%
(
23 of
50)
65
Total Points Won
47
|
6-2 6-3 | H2H |
view more
Nerman Fatic Recent Matches Played
opponent | Score | H2H | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
SF |
Marco Trungelliti
Player
Nerman Fatic
63%
(
60 of
95)
1st Serve %
71%
(
63 of
89)
1
Aces
0
5
Double Faults
1
68%
(
41 of
60)
1st Serve Won
56%
(
35 of
63)
37%
(
13 of
35)
2nd Serve Won
46%
(
12 of
26)
57%
(
8 of
14)
Break Points Won
50%
(
7 of
14)
43%
(
41 of
95)
Rtn Points Won
47%
(
42 of
89)
96
Total Points Won
88
|
6-3 4-6 7-5 | H2H | ||
QF |
Nerman Fatic
Player
Adrian Andreev
68%
(
50 of
74)
1st Serve %
68%
(
32 of
47)
4
Aces
1
1
Double Faults
3
62%
(
31 of
50)
1st Serve Won
59%
(
19 of
32)
54%
(
13 of
24)
2nd Serve Won
47%
(
7 of
15)
67%
(
4 of
6)
Break Points Won
17%
(
2 of
12)
41%
(
30 of
74)
Rtn Points Won
45%
(
21 of
47)
65
Total Points Won
56
|
6-4 6-3 | H2H | ||
R2 |
Nerman Fatic
Player
Aziz Dougaz
78%
(
47 of
60)
1st Serve %
68%
(
36 of
53)
3
Aces
3
0
Double Faults
2
77%
(
36 of
47)
1st Serve Won
72%
(
26 of
36)
62%
(
8 of
13)
2nd Serve Won
47%
(
8 of
17)
67%
(
2 of
3)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
27%
(
16 of
60)
Rtn Points Won
36%
(
19 of
53)
63
Total Points Won
50
|
6-2 7-6(1) | H2H | ||
R1 |
Nerman Fatic
Player
Timofey Skatov
70%
(
33 of
47)
1st Serve %
54%
(
29 of
54)
1
Aces
1
0
Double Faults
1
70%
(
23 of
33)
1st Serve Won
41%
(
12 of
29)
71%
(
10 of
14)
2nd Serve Won
60%
(
15 of
25)
40%
(
4 of
10)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
30%
(
14 of
47)
Rtn Points Won
50%
(
27 of
54)
60
Total Points Won
41
|
6-4 6-0 | H2H | ||
Q1 |
Felipe Meligeni Alves
Player
Nerman Fatic
81%
(
47 of
58)
1st Serve %
70%
(
39 of
56)
3
Aces
7
0
Double Faults
3
74%
(
35 of
47)
1st Serve Won
67%
(
26 of
39)
82%
(
9 of
11)
2nd Serve Won
53%
(
9 of
17)
33%
(
2 of
6)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
2)
24%
(
14 of
58)
Rtn Points Won
38%
(
21 of
56)
65
Total Points Won
49
|
6-3 6-4 | H2H | ||
Q1 |
Brandon Nakashima
Player
Nerman Fatic
53%
(
39 of
74)
1st Serve %
65%
(
56 of
86)
3
Aces
6
2
Double Faults
6
82%
(
32 of
39)
1st Serve Won
73%
(
41 of
56)
63%
(
22 of
35)
2nd Serve Won
50%
(
15 of
30)
17%
(
1 of
6)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
27%
(
20 of
74)
Rtn Points Won
35%
(
30 of
86)
84
Total Points Won
76
|
7-6(5) 7-5 | H2H | ||
R1 |
Jesper De Jong
Player
Nerman Fatic
57%
(
49 of
86)
1st Serve %
70%
(
58 of
83)
3
Aces
5
2
Double Faults
1
78%
(
38 of
49)
1st Serve Won
71%
(
41 of
58)
51%
(
19 of
37)
2nd Serve Won
56%
(
14 of
25)
20%
(
1 of
5)
Break Points Won
67%
(
2 of
3)
34%
(
29 of
86)
Rtn Points Won
34%
(
28 of
83)
85
Total Points Won
84
|
3-6 7-6(6) 4-1 ret. | H2H | ||
QF |
Alejandro Moro Canas
Player
Nerman Fatic
72%
(
39 of
54)
1st Serve %
59%
(
33 of
56)
2
Aces
4
2
Double Faults
4
72%
(
28 of
39)
1st Serve Won
61%
(
20 of
33)
53%
(
8 of
15)
2nd Serve Won
39%
(
9 of
23)
44%
(
4 of
9)
Break Points Won
50%
(
1 of
2)
33%
(
18 of
54)
Rtn Points Won
48%
(
27 of
56)
63
Total Points Won
47
|
6-4 6-2 | H2H | ||
Q1 |
Nerman Fatic
Player
Edoardo Lavagno
75%
(
39 of
52)
1st Serve %
64%
(
36 of
56)
1
Aces
0
0
Double Faults
4
74%
(
29 of
39)
1st Serve Won
58%
(
21 of
36)
69%
(
9 of
13)
2nd Serve Won
60%
(
12 of
20)
38%
(
3 of
8)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
3)
27%
(
14 of
52)
Rtn Points Won
41%
(
23 of
56)
61
Total Points Won
47
|
6-4 6-2 | H2H | ||
R1 |
Zsombor Piros
Player
Nerman Fatic
73%
(
57 of
78)
1st Serve %
56%
(
48 of
85)
5
Aces
2
4
Double Faults
2
70%
(
40 of
57)
1st Serve Won
54%
(
26 of
48)
38%
(
8 of
21)
2nd Serve Won
49%
(
18 of
37)
46%
(
6 of
13)
Break Points Won
38%
(
3 of
8)
38%
(
30 of
78)
Rtn Points Won
48%
(
41 of
85)
89
Total Points Won
74
|
4-6 6-3 6-1 | H2H |
view more