Predictions
Matches
Calendar
H2H
Rankings
Picks Blog
Edward Winter vs Nathan Ponwith 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 Winter vs Ponwith analysis and find out who is favored!
Edward Winter vs Nathan Ponwith Important H2H Prediction Stats:
Head-to-head: Winter 1 - 0 Ponwith
- Second serve performance recent form: In recent form (last 6 months), Winter has won 40.98% of points on their second serve, while Ponwith has won 50.68%. There is a high correlation between this stat and match prediction accuracy.
- Return game stats recent form: Return stats show Winter, in recent form, has won 35% of their opponent's second serve points, while Ponwith has won 50.39%. The same stats for first serve returns are 28.83% and 31.93% respectively and this has a high correlation to pick who is favored in this H2H matchup.
- Under pressure analysis: Winter has saved 50% of breakpoints in recent form, whereas Ponwith has saved 55.49% which is a useful statistic for in-game betting predictions.
- Performance overview: Over the last year Winter has won 60% of matches played (W/L 15/ 10), with Ponwith winning 31.37% (W/L 16/ 35) that gives us an overall head-to head prediction overview.
- Best surface: Winter has their best career surface win % on I.hard, winning 100% (W/L 3/ 0), and worse career win % on Grass, winning 50% (W/L 2/ 2). Ponwith has their best career surface win % on Clay, winning 58% (W/L 38/ 27), and worse career win % on I.hard, winning 36% (W/L 8/ 14).
- Player level: In the last year, Winter has played most of their matches on the Futures/Satellites/ITF tournaments $10K, winning 65% of matches (W/L 13/ 7), where as Ponwith has played most of their matches on the Challengers/ITF tournaments > $10K, winning 20.69% of matches (W/L 6/ 23). 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 Winter winning 1 times and Ponwith being victorious 0 times. They have played 2 sets in total, with Winter winning 2 and Ponwith winning 0. The last match between Winter and Ponwith was at the Fairfield Challenger, 08-10-2023, Q1 round, Hard with Edward Winter getting the victory 6-2 6-2.
- Head to head match duration: In past head to head matches, the average match time between these players has been 1:8:35.
- Deciding set H2H prediction: Winter and Ponwith have played a deciding set 0 times, with Winter winning 0 times and Ponwith 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 Winter winning 0, and Ponwith 0.
- Opponent quality stats: Over the last 12 months, Winter has played against opponents with an average rank of 138.08 while Ponwith has played against players with an average rank of 174.18.
- Deciding set performance vs all players: If you are interested in live predictions and betting, if this match goes into a deciding set, Winter has won 67% of deciding sets over the last 12 months, while Ponwith has won 45% in all matches played on tour.
- Break point conversion: In recent form, Winter has converted 38.46% of breakpoint opportunities, and Ponwith has converted 41.33% of their chances to break their opponents serve. A telling stat for in-game live betting tips when either player has a breakpoint opportunity.
771
Rank
589
High
19
Age
Plays
1
Total0
1
Hard0
0
Clay0
0
Indoor0
0
Grass0
752
Rank
367
High
26
Age
R
Plays
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
Form
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
55% (41-34)
Career Total W/L
56% (170-136)
33% (1-2)
YTD W/L
44% (11-14)
$118,500
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.
| stats | Edward Winter | Nathan Ponwith |
|---|---|---|
| All H2H Matches | 1 | 0 |
| Sets Won | 2 | 0 |
| Games Won | 12 | 4 |
| Aces (Total) | 4 | 2 |
| DFs (Total) | 2 | 4 |
| Avg Match Time | 1:8:35 | 1:8:35 |
| 1st Serve % | 59% (22/37) | 51% (30/59) |
| 1st Serve Win% | 82% (18/22) | 63% (19/30) |
| 2nd Serve Win% | 80% (12/15) | 34% (10/29) |
| BPs Won% (Total) | 42% (5/12) | 100% (1/1) |
| Return Points W% | 51% (30/59) | 19% (7/37) |
| 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 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6-2 6-2 |
Stats 
Edward Winter
Player
Nathan Ponwith
59%
(
22 of
37)
1st Serve %
51%
(
30 of
59)
4
Aces
2
2
Double Faults
4
82%
(
18 of
22)
1st Serve Won
63%
(
19 of
30)
80%
(
12 of
15)
2nd Serve Won
34%
(
10 of
29)
42%
(
5 of
12)
Break Points Won
100%
(
1 of
1)
19%
(
7 of
37)
Rtn Points Won
51%
(
30 of
59)
60
Total Points Won
36
|
||||
Stats Breakdown Vs All H2H Opponents
| stats | Edward Winter | Nathan Ponwith |
|---|---|---|
| YTD W/L | 33% (1/2) | 44% (11/14) |
| Sets Win/Loss | 33% (2/4) | 43% (24/32) |
| Games Win/Loss | 45% (25/31) | 47% (246/276) |
| Hard Win/Loss | 33% (1/2) | 50% (9/9) |
| Clay Win/Loss | 0% (0/0) | 40% (2/3) |
| Indoor Hard W/L | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/2) |
| Grass Win/Loss | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Aces pg | 0.15 | 0.24 |
| Aces Total | 4 | 60 |
| DFs per game | 0.44 | 0.38 |
| DFs Total | 12 | 98 |
| Avg Match Time | 1:11:48 | 1:48:50 |
| Avg Opp Rank | 402 | 222.48 |
| 1st Serve % | 64% (110/171) | 57% (985/1719) |
| 1st Serve W% | 68% (75/110) | 65% (637/985) |
| 2nd Serve W% | 41% (25/61) | 51% (372/734) |
| BPs Won% Total | 38% (5/13) | 41% (62/150) |
| Return Pts W% | 30% (46/151) | 39% (647/1658) |
| Slam W/L | 50% (1/1) | 0% (0/0) |
| Masters W/L | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Cups W/L | 0% (0/0) | 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 | 0% (0/1) | 29% (2/5) |
| Futures W/L | 0% (0/0) | 50% (9/9) |
| Best of 3 Sets W% | 33% (1/3) | 44% (11/25) |
| Best of 5 Sets W% | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| TBs Win% (Total) | 0% (0/0) | 71% (5/7) |
| Deciding Set W% | 0% (0/0) | 67% (4/6) |
| 1st set W, W | 100% (1/1) | 82% (11/9) |
| 1st set W, L | 0% (1/0) | 18% (11/2) |
| 1st set L, W | 0% (2/0) | 14% (14/2) |
Edward Winter Recent Matches Played
Before:
| opponent | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q2 |
Stats
Sumit Nagal
Player
Edward Winter
84%
(
31 of
37)
1st Serve %
76%
(
42 of
55)
1
Aces
1
0
Double Faults
4
77%
(
24 of
31)
1st Serve Won
57%
(
24 of
42)
83%
(
5 of
6)
2nd Serve Won
15%
(
2 of
13)
71%
(
5 of
7)
Break Points Won
100%
(
1 of
1)
22%
(
8 of
37)
Rtn Points Won
53%
(
29 of
55)
58
Total Points Won
34
|
6-3 6-2 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Edward Winter
Player
Franco Agamenone
62%
(
33 of
53)
1st Serve %
67%
(
41 of
61)
0
Aces
3
4
Double Faults
3
76%
(
25 of
33)
1st Serve Won
56%
(
23 of
41)
50%
(
10 of
20)
2nd Serve Won
50%
(
10 of
20)
36%
(
4 of
11)
Break Points Won
40%
(
2 of
5)
34%
(
18 of
53)
Rtn Points Won
46%
(
28 of
61)
63
Total Points Won
51
|
6-3 6-4 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Matteo Gigante
Player
Edward Winter
74%
(
39 of
53)
1st Serve %
56%
(
35 of
63)
9
Aces
3
1
Double Faults
4
82%
(
32 of
39)
1st Serve Won
74%
(
26 of
35)
79%
(
11 of
14)
2nd Serve Won
46%
(
13 of
28)
33%
(
2 of
6)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
1)
19%
(
10 of
53)
Rtn Points Won
38%
(
24 of
63)
67
Total Points Won
49
|
6-4 6-4 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Learner Tien
Player
Edward Winter
44%
(
29 of
66)
1st Serve %
62%
(
34 of
55)
3
Aces
1
6
Double Faults
2
52%
(
15 of
29)
1st Serve Won
47%
(
16 of
34)
65%
(
24 of
37)
2nd Serve Won
52%
(
11 of
21)
42%
(
5 of
12)
Break Points Won
20%
(
2 of
10)
41%
(
27 of
66)
Rtn Points Won
51%
(
28 of
55)
67
Total Points Won
54
|
6-3 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Edward Winter
Player
Luc Koenig
59%
(
29 of
49)
1st Serve %
51%
(
24 of
47)
1
Aces
4
1
Double Faults
3
69%
(
20 of
29)
1st Serve Won
67%
(
16 of
24)
60%
(
12 of
20)
2nd Serve Won
13%
(
3 of
23)
71%
(
5 of
7)
Break Points Won
100%
(
1 of
1)
35%
(
17 of
49)
Rtn Points Won
60%
(
28 of
47)
60
Total Points Won
36
|
6-1 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Edward Winter
Player
Jonah Braswell
63%
(
24 of
38)
1st Serve %
57%
(
21 of
37)
2
Aces
2
0
Double Faults
5
63%
(
15 of
24)
1st Serve Won
43%
(
9 of
21)
71%
(
10 of
14)
2nd Serve Won
44%
(
7 of
16)
57%
(
4 of
7)
Break Points Won
50%
(
1 of
2)
34%
(
13 of
38)
Rtn Points Won
57%
(
21 of
37)
46
Total Points Won
29
|
6-2 3-1 ret. | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Keegan Smith
Player
Edward Winter
64%
(
34 of
53)
1st Serve %
56%
(
28 of
50)
2
Aces
1
1
Double Faults
1
68%
(
23 of
34)
1st Serve Won
46%
(
13 of
28)
74%
(
14 of
19)
2nd Serve Won
59%
(
13 of
22)
100%
(
4 of
4)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
2)
30%
(
16 of
53)
Rtn Points Won
48%
(
24 of
50)
61
Total Points Won
42
|
6-4 6-0 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Edward Winter
Player
Nathan Ponwith
59%
(
22 of
37)
1st Serve %
51%
(
30 of
59)
4
Aces
2
2
Double Faults
4
82%
(
18 of
22)
1st Serve Won
63%
(
19 of
30)
80%
(
12 of
15)
2nd Serve Won
34%
(
10 of
29)
42%
(
5 of
12)
Break Points Won
100%
(
1 of
1)
19%
(
7 of
37)
Rtn Points Won
51%
(
30 of
59)
60
Total Points Won
36
|
6-2 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Keisuke Saitoh
Player
Edward Winter
56%
(
47 of
84)
1st Serve %
74%
(
40 of
54)
4
Aces
0
2
Double Faults
2
72%
(
34 of
47)
1st Serve Won
75%
(
30 of
40)
57%
(
21 of
37)
2nd Serve Won
50%
(
7 of
14)
67%
(
2 of
3)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
9)
35%
(
29 of
84)
Rtn Points Won
31%
(
17 of
54)
72
Total Points Won
66
|
7-6(3) 6-2 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Luke Saville
Player
Edward Winter
77%
(
43 of
56)
1st Serve %
65%
(
40 of
62)
3
Aces
0
1
Double Faults
1
70%
(
30 of
43)
1st Serve Won
55%
(
22 of
40)
54%
(
7 of
13)
2nd Serve Won
45%
(
10 of
22)
33%
(
4 of
12)
Break Points Won
40%
(
2 of
5)
34%
(
19 of
56)
Rtn Points Won
48%
(
30 of
62)
67
Total Points Won
51
|
6-3 6-4 | H2H | ||
view more
Nathan Ponwith Recent Matches Played
Before:
| opponent | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QF |
Stats
Learner Tien
Player
Nathan Ponwith
71%
(
36 of
51)
1st Serve %
58%
(
30 of
52)
3
Aces
1
1
Double Faults
4
83%
(
30 of
36)
1st Serve Won
63%
(
19 of
30)
47%
(
7 of
15)
2nd Serve Won
32%
(
7 of
22)
44%
(
4 of
9)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
1)
27%
(
14 of
51)
Rtn Points Won
50%
(
26 of
52)
63
Total Points Won
40
|
6-1 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Nathan Ponwith
Player
Collin Altamirano
57%
(
58 of
101)
1st Serve %
59%
(
52 of
88)
4
Aces
6
7
Double Faults
1
59%
(
34 of
58)
1st Serve Won
65%
(
34 of
52)
44%
(
19 of
43)
2nd Serve Won
42%
(
15 of
36)
56%
(
5 of
9)
Break Points Won
50%
(
6 of
12)
48%
(
48 of
101)
Rtn Points Won
44%
(
39 of
88)
92
Total Points Won
97
|
6-4 1-6 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Nathan Ponwith
Player
Harsh Parikh
57%
(
31 of
54)
1st Serve %
46%
(
25 of
54)
3
Aces
3
2
Double Faults
6
77%
(
24 of
31)
1st Serve Won
72%
(
18 of
25)
61%
(
14 of
23)
2nd Serve Won
34%
(
10 of
29)
30%
(
3 of
10)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
2)
30%
(
16 of
54)
Rtn Points Won
48%
(
26 of
54)
64
Total Points Won
44
|
6-2 6-3 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Bruno Kuzuhara
Player
Nathan Ponwith
63%
(
47 of
75)
1st Serve %
58%
(
32 of
55)
1
Aces
5
1
Double Faults
5
60%
(
28 of
47)
1st Serve Won
66%
(
21 of
32)
61%
(
17 of
28)
2nd Serve Won
17%
(
4 of
23)
56%
(
5 of
9)
Break Points Won
25%
(
2 of
8)
40%
(
30 of
75)
Rtn Points Won
55%
(
30 of
55)
75
Total Points Won
55
|
6-3 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Nathan Ponwith
Player
Aidan Mchugh
50%
(
30 of
60)
1st Serve %
68%
(
39 of
57)
1
Aces
0
4
Double Faults
0
73%
(
22 of
30)
1st Serve Won
54%
(
21 of
39)
53%
(
16 of
30)
2nd Serve Won
44%
(
8 of
18)
71%
(
5 of
7)
Break Points Won
60%
(
3 of
5)
37%
(
22 of
60)
Rtn Points Won
49%
(
28 of
57)
66
Total Points Won
51
|
7-5 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Nathan Ponwith
Player
Maxwell Benson
60%
(
25 of
42)
1st Serve %
59%
(
29 of
49)
6
Aces
1
4
Double Faults
5
92%
(
23 of
25)
1st Serve Won
55%
(
16 of
29)
65%
(
11 of
17)
2nd Serve Won
30%
(
6 of
20)
50%
(
4 of
8)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
19%
(
8 of
42)
Rtn Points Won
55%
(
27 of
49)
61
Total Points Won
30
|
6-0 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Arvid Nordquist
Player
Nathan Ponwith
73%
(
36 of
49)
1st Serve %
54%
(
38 of
71)
2
Aces
1
3
Double Faults
6
78%
(
28 of
36)
1st Serve Won
66%
(
25 of
38)
69%
(
9 of
13)
2nd Serve Won
45%
(
15 of
33)
23%
(
3 of
13)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
24%
(
12 of
49)
Rtn Points Won
44%
(
31 of
71)
68
Total Points Won
52
|
6-3 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Rudy Quan
Player
Nathan Ponwith
62%
(
38 of
61)
1st Serve %
48%
(
31 of
65)
-
Aces
-
1
Double Faults
6
61%
(
23 of
38)
1st Serve Won
48%
(
15 of
31)
52%
(
12 of
23)
2nd Serve Won
38%
(
13 of
34)
64%
(
7 of
11)
Break Points Won
33%
(
4 of
12)
43%
(
26 of
61)
Rtn Points Won
57%
(
37 of
65)
72
Total Points Won
54
|
6-0 7-6(5) | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Maxime Cressy
Player
Nathan Ponwith
65%
(
33 of
51)
1st Serve %
60%
(
29 of
48)
9
Aces
0
6
Double Faults
3
70%
(
23 of
33)
1st Serve Won
41%
(
12 of
29)
39%
(
7 of
18)
2nd Serve Won
37%
(
7 of
19)
67%
(
6 of
9)
Break Points Won
33%
(
2 of
6)
41%
(
21 of
51)
Rtn Points Won
60%
(
29 of
48)
59
Total Points Won
40
|
6-4 6-0 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Nathan Ponwith
Player
Nick Chappell
60%
(
61 of
102)
1st Serve %
69%
(
64 of
93)
0
Aces
6
4
Double Faults
0
70%
(
43 of
61)
1st Serve Won
66%
(
42 of
64)
54%
(
22 of
41)
2nd Serve Won
48%
(
14 of
29)
60%
(
3 of
5)
Break Points Won
27%
(
3 of
11)
36%
(
37 of
102)
Rtn Points Won
40%
(
37 of
93)
102
Total Points Won
93
|
2-6 7-6(2) 6-2 | H2H | ||
view more
Winter Vs Ponwith Prediction H2H Images To Share
Potential H2H Matches This Week For Edward Winter
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]
