Elvina Kalieva vs Anna-Lena Friedsam Head-to-Head Stats, Results & Performance Comparison
By Wojtek Kolan
Form
W W L W W L W L L L
Form
W W W W W W L W W WHead-to-head: Kalieva 0 - 1 Friedsam
They have played 2 sets in total, with Kalieva winning 0 and Friedsam winning 2. The last match between Kalieva and Friedsam was at the W75 Altenkirchen, 14-02-2025, Quarterfinals, Carpet with Anna-Lena Friedsam getting the victory 6-4 6-3.
W75 Altenkirchen(14-02-2025)
6
4
6
3
Today’s Tennis Tips:
Lamens VS Uchijima PREDICTION Hard
Miami Open - Miami wta
18 Mar 2025 / First
ODDS
PREDICTION
EDGE
Serrano VS Mboko PREDICTION Hard
Miami Open - Miami wta
18 Mar 2025 / First
ODDS
PREDICTION
EDGE
| Winning Player | Losing Player | Score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6-4 6-3 |
Stats 
Anna-Lena Friedsam
Player
Elvina Kalieva
70%
(
42 of
60)
1st Serve %
48%
(
30 of
63)
4
Aces
6
2
Double Faults
5
71%
(
30 of
42)
1st Serve Won
63%
(
19 of
30)
61%
(
11 of
18)
2nd Serve Won
42%
(
14 of
33)
40%
(
4 of
10)
Break Points Won
50%
(
2 of
4)
32%
(
19 of
60)
Rtn Points Won
48%
(
30 of
63)
71
Total Points Won
52
|
||||
Stats
0
H2H Matches
1
0
Sets Won
2
7
Games Won
12
6
Aces (Total)
4
5
Total Double Faults
2
1:36:2
Average Match Time
1:36:2
48% (30/63)
1st Serve %
70% (42/60)
63% (19/30)
1st Serve Win %
71% (30/42)
42% (14/33)
2nd Serve Win %
61% (11/18)
50% (2/4)
Break Points Won % (Total)
40% (4/10)
32% (19/60)
Return Points Win %
48% (30/63)
0% (0/1)
Best of 3 Sets Win %
100% (1/1)
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)
0% (0/0)
1st Set Won, Won Match
100% (1/1)
0% (0/0)
1st Set Won, Lost Match
0% (1/0)
0% (1/0)
1st Set Lost, Won Match
0% (0/0)
Currently displayed stats includes matches of all levels. To exclude lower level events (as per ATP / WTA official stats) toggle button in page footer.
Elvina Kalieva vs Anna-Lena Friedsam Important H2H Prediction Stats:
Head-to-head: Elvina Kalieva 0 - 1 Anna-Lena Friedsam
Second serve performance recent form: In recent times spanning the last six months, Kalieva has demonstrated a proficiency in securing victory on 47.54% of points played on their second serve, whereas Friedsam has exhibited a slightly superior performance by triumphing in 49.04% of the second serve points. It is worth noting that this particular statistic holds a substantial correlation to the accuracy of predicting the outcome of the imminent match.
Return game stats recent form: Upon closer inspection of recent return game statistics, Kalieva has showcased an impressive capability of winning 56.84% of points on their opponent's second serve, whereas Friedsam has triumphed in 57.57% of such points. In terms of first serve returns, the respective figures stand at 40.66% for Kalieva and 36.25% for Friedsam. These return game statistics bear significant relevance in determining the favored player in this head-to-head matchup.
Under pressure analysis: Analyzing the ability to respond under pressure, Kalieva has successfully repelled 52.27% of breakpoints in their recent performances, while Friedsam has demonstrated an even higher efficiency in saving 57.59% of such crucial points. This particular statistic proves highly valuable in formulating in-game betting predictions.
Performance overview: When assessing the overall performance over the past year, Kalieva boasts a commendable 52.86% win-rate from a total of 70 matches played (37 wins and 33 losses). Meanwhile, Friedsam has achieved a significantly higher success rate of 65.63% with 21 wins and 11 losses in total. Considering these figures, it provides us with an insightful overview of the upcoming head-to-head prediction.
Best surface: Delving into the analysis of optimal playing surfaces for each player, it becomes apparent that Kalieva thrives most on Clay courts where they have secured victory in 57% of matches played with a record of 75 wins and 57 losses. Conversely, Grass courts present a challenge for Kalieva with a modest success rate of only 33% (2 wins and 4 losses). In contrast, Friedsam exhibits exceptional proficiency on Indoor Hard courts, triumphing in 67% of matches played (120 wins and 58 losses), while Grass courts pose a comparative challenge with a 47% win rate (16 wins and 18 losses).
Player level: Over the past year, Kalieva has predominantly competed at the Challengers/ITF tournaments exceeding $10,000 in prize money. Within this playing domain, they have emerged victorious in 55.74% of matches played, accumulating a total of 34 wins against 27 losses. Similarly, Friedsam has frequently participated in the same class of tournaments, achieving an impressive 69.23% win rate with 18 wins and 8 losses. It is crucial to acknowledge that performance indicators in player comparisons are intrinsically tied to the caliber of events they have participated in.
Opponent quality stats: Examining the quality of opponents faced over the preceding 12-month timeframe, Kalieva has encountered adversaries with an average ranking of 258.56, while Friedsam has competed against players with an average ranking positioned at 314.47.
Deciding set performance vs all players: For those engrossed in live predictions and betting, it is pertinent to consider the likelihood of a deciding set within the context of their previous performances. Kalieva has emerged victorious in 48% of deciding sets played over the past year, while Friedsam has proven more adept in such situations, securing victory in 58% of all matches played on tour.
Current event H2H stats: Whilst historical player performance serves as a valuable aspect when predicting tennis matches, it is equally essential to scrutinize the current event statistics of players in order to gauge their current form. One should refer to the section below (if available) to ascertain the performance of both players within the ongoing event. Moreover, individual players may exhibit enhanced performance levels at specific tournaments, which should be factored into the ultimate outcome of the match.
Break point conversion: Recent trends in break point conversion rate reveal that Kalieva has capitalized on 48.32% of breakpoints, whereas Friedsam has utilized 41.6% of their chances to disrupt their opponents' serve. This particular statistic assumes immense significance for in-game live betting tips, particularly when either player is granted a breakpoint opportunity.
If you are intrigued by models that specialize in predicting tennis matches, you may find this article as an excellent starting point to delve deeper into the subject matter (Warning: Only suitable for ardent statistics enthusiasts).
Return game stats recent form: Upon closer inspection of recent return game statistics, Kalieva has showcased an impressive capability of winning 56.84% of points on their opponent's second serve, whereas Friedsam has triumphed in 57.57% of such points. In terms of first serve returns, the respective figures stand at 40.66% for Kalieva and 36.25% for Friedsam. These return game statistics bear significant relevance in determining the favored player in this head-to-head matchup.
Under pressure analysis: Analyzing the ability to respond under pressure, Kalieva has successfully repelled 52.27% of breakpoints in their recent performances, while Friedsam has demonstrated an even higher efficiency in saving 57.59% of such crucial points. This particular statistic proves highly valuable in formulating in-game betting predictions.
Performance overview: When assessing the overall performance over the past year, Kalieva boasts a commendable 52.86% win-rate from a total of 70 matches played (37 wins and 33 losses). Meanwhile, Friedsam has achieved a significantly higher success rate of 65.63% with 21 wins and 11 losses in total. Considering these figures, it provides us with an insightful overview of the upcoming head-to-head prediction.
Best surface: Delving into the analysis of optimal playing surfaces for each player, it becomes apparent that Kalieva thrives most on Clay courts where they have secured victory in 57% of matches played with a record of 75 wins and 57 losses. Conversely, Grass courts present a challenge for Kalieva with a modest success rate of only 33% (2 wins and 4 losses). In contrast, Friedsam exhibits exceptional proficiency on Indoor Hard courts, triumphing in 67% of matches played (120 wins and 58 losses), while Grass courts pose a comparative challenge with a 47% win rate (16 wins and 18 losses).
Player level: Over the past year, Kalieva has predominantly competed at the Challengers/ITF tournaments exceeding $10,000 in prize money. Within this playing domain, they have emerged victorious in 55.74% of matches played, accumulating a total of 34 wins against 27 losses. Similarly, Friedsam has frequently participated in the same class of tournaments, achieving an impressive 69.23% win rate with 18 wins and 8 losses. It is crucial to acknowledge that performance indicators in player comparisons are intrinsically tied to the caliber of events they have participated in.
Opponent quality stats: Examining the quality of opponents faced over the preceding 12-month timeframe, Kalieva has encountered adversaries with an average ranking of 258.56, while Friedsam has competed against players with an average ranking positioned at 314.47.
Deciding set performance vs all players: For those engrossed in live predictions and betting, it is pertinent to consider the likelihood of a deciding set within the context of their previous performances. Kalieva has emerged victorious in 48% of deciding sets played over the past year, while Friedsam has proven more adept in such situations, securing victory in 58% of all matches played on tour.
Current event H2H stats: Whilst historical player performance serves as a valuable aspect when predicting tennis matches, it is equally essential to scrutinize the current event statistics of players in order to gauge their current form. One should refer to the section below (if available) to ascertain the performance of both players within the ongoing event. Moreover, individual players may exhibit enhanced performance levels at specific tournaments, which should be factored into the ultimate outcome of the match.
Break point conversion: Recent trends in break point conversion rate reveal that Kalieva has capitalized on 48.32% of breakpoints, whereas Friedsam has utilized 41.6% of their chances to disrupt their opponents' serve. This particular statistic assumes immense significance for in-game live betting tips, particularly when either player is granted a breakpoint opportunity.
If you are intrigued by models that specialize in predicting tennis matches, you may find this article as an excellent starting point to delve deeper into the subject matter (Warning: Only suitable for ardent statistics enthusiasts).
Elvina Kalieva Recent Matches Played
Before:
| OPPONENT | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 |
Stats
Kathinka Von Deichmann
Player
Elvina Kalieva
71%
(
59 of
83)
1st Serve %
46%
(
37 of
81)
3
Aces
3
5
Double Faults
6
58%
(
34 of
59)
1st Serve Won
51%
(
19 of
37)
46%
(
11 of
24)
2nd Serve Won
39%
(
17 of
44)
60%
(
6 of
10)
Break Points Won
33%
(
5 of
15)
46%
(
38 of
83)
Rtn Points Won
56%
(
45 of
81)
90
Total Points Won
74
|
6-4 7-6(0) | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Tyra Caterina Grant
Player
Elvina Kalieva
72%
(
80 of
111)
1st Serve %
64%
(
66 of
103)
1
Aces
3
6
Double Faults
8
64%
(
51 of
80)
1st Serve Won
62%
(
41 of
66)
45%
(
14 of
31)
2nd Serve Won
43%
(
16 of
37)
50%
(
6 of
12)
Break Points Won
27%
(
3 of
11)
41%
(
46 of
111)
Rtn Points Won
45%
(
46 of
103)
111
Total Points Won
103
|
6-7(7) 6-4 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Yuriko Miyazaki
Player
Elvina Kalieva
51%
(
29 of
57)
1st Serve %
51%
(
26 of
51)
0
Aces
2
3
Double Faults
4
76%
(
22 of
29)
1st Serve Won
58%
(
15 of
26)
46%
(
13 of
28)
2nd Serve Won
40%
(
10 of
25)
71%
(
5 of
7)
Break Points Won
33%
(
2 of
6)
39%
(
22 of
57)
Rtn Points Won
51%
(
26 of
51)
61
Total Points Won
47
|
6-3 6-3 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Elvina Kalieva
Player
Francesca Curmi
66%
(
33 of
50)
1st Serve %
74%
(
37 of
50)
3
Aces
0
4
Double Faults
0
76%
(
25 of
33)
1st Serve Won
41%
(
15 of
37)
53%
(
9 of
17)
2nd Serve Won
46%
(
6 of
13)
42%
(
5 of
12)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
5)
32%
(
16 of
50)
Rtn Points Won
58%
(
29 of
50)
63
Total Points Won
37
|
6-2 6-0 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Anna-Lena Friedsam
Player
Elvina Kalieva
70%
(
42 of
60)
1st Serve %
48%
(
30 of
63)
4
Aces
6
2
Double Faults
5
71%
(
30 of
42)
1st Serve Won
63%
(
19 of
30)
61%
(
11 of
18)
2nd Serve Won
42%
(
14 of
33)
40%
(
4 of
10)
Break Points Won
50%
(
2 of
4)
32%
(
19 of
60)
Rtn Points Won
48%
(
30 of
63)
71
Total Points Won
52
|
6-4 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Elvina Kalieva
Player
Radka Zelnickova
60%
(
27 of
45)
1st Serve %
57%
(
28 of
49)
9
Aces
1
3
Double Faults
2
85%
(
23 of
27)
1st Serve Won
46%
(
13 of
28)
44%
(
8 of
18)
2nd Serve Won
33%
(
7 of
21)
56%
(
5 of
9)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
1)
31%
(
14 of
45)
Rtn Points Won
59%
(
29 of
49)
60
Total Points Won
34
|
6-0 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Elvina Kalieva
Player
Sinja Kraus
64%
(
73 of
114)
1st Serve %
52%
(
61 of
118)
15
Aces
4
5
Double Faults
6
68%
(
50 of
73)
1st Serve Won
64%
(
39 of
61)
39%
(
16 of
41)
2nd Serve Won
53%
(
30 of
57)
45%
(
5 of
11)
Break Points Won
75%
(
6 of
8)
42%
(
48 of
114)
Rtn Points Won
42%
(
49 of
118)
115
Total Points Won
117
|
4-6 7-6(5) 7-5 | H2H | ||
| SF |
Stats
Anna Sinclair Rogers
Player
Elvina Kalieva
63%
(
75 of
119)
1st Serve %
59%
(
70 of
119)
7
Aces
2
7
Double Faults
8
63%
(
47 of
75)
1st Serve Won
60%
(
42 of
70)
43%
(
19 of
44)
2nd Serve Won
53%
(
26 of
49)
42%
(
5 of
12)
Break Points Won
55%
(
6 of
11)
45%
(
53 of
119)
Rtn Points Won
43%
(
51 of
119)
117
Total Points Won
121
|
7-6(4) 3-6 7-6(5) | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Elvina Kalieva
Player
Linda Klimovicova
44%
(
27 of
61)
1st Serve %
53%
(
41 of
78)
3
Aces
0
6
Double Faults
5
74%
(
20 of
27)
1st Serve Won
59%
(
24 of
41)
50%
(
17 of
34)
2nd Serve Won
38%
(
14 of
37)
50%
(
5 of
10)
Break Points Won
100%
(
3 of
3)
39%
(
24 of
61)
Rtn Points Won
51%
(
40 of
78)
77
Total Points Won
62
|
6-4 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Elvina Kalieva
Player
Chelsea Fontenel
65%
(
42 of
65)
1st Serve %
60%
(
39 of
65)
0
Aces
5
0
Double Faults
3
69%
(
29 of
42)
1st Serve Won
69%
(
27 of
39)
61%
(
14 of
23)
2nd Serve Won
38%
(
10 of
26)
75%
(
3 of
4)
Break Points Won
100%
(
1 of
1)
34%
(
22 of
65)
Rtn Points Won
43%
(
28 of
65)
71
Total Points Won
59
|
6-4 6-4 | H2H | ||
view more
Anna-Lena Friedsam Recent Matches Played
Before:
| OPPONENT | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SF | w/o | H2H | |||
| QF |
Stats
Anna-Lena Friedsam
Player
Elvina Kalieva
70%
(
42 of
60)
1st Serve %
48%
(
30 of
63)
4
Aces
6
2
Double Faults
5
71%
(
30 of
42)
1st Serve Won
63%
(
19 of
30)
61%
(
11 of
18)
2nd Serve Won
42%
(
14 of
33)
40%
(
4 of
10)
Break Points Won
50%
(
2 of
4)
32%
(
19 of
60)
Rtn Points Won
48%
(
30 of
63)
71
Total Points Won
52
|
6-4 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Anna-Lena Friedsam
Player
Emily Appleton
68%
(
41 of
60)
1st Serve %
67%
(
58 of
87)
3
Aces
0
3
Double Faults
5
83%
(
34 of
41)
1st Serve Won
69%
(
40 of
58)
53%
(
10 of
19)
2nd Serve Won
38%
(
11 of
29)
30%
(
3 of
10)
Break Points Won
25%
(
1 of
4)
27%
(
16 of
60)
Rtn Points Won
41%
(
36 of
87)
80
Total Points Won
67
|
7-6(5) 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Anna-Lena Friedsam
Player
Dalma Galfi
74%
(
61 of
82)
1st Serve %
65%
(
59 of
91)
7
Aces
6
3
Double Faults
5
72%
(
44 of
61)
1st Serve Won
68%
(
40 of
59)
52%
(
11 of
21)
2nd Serve Won
28%
(
9 of
32)
38%
(
5 of
13)
Break Points Won
38%
(
3 of
8)
33%
(
27 of
82)
Rtn Points Won
46%
(
42 of
91)
97
Total Points Won
76
|
6-3 4-6 6-3 | H2H | ||
| SF |
Stats
Tyra Caterina Grant
Player
Anna-Lena Friedsam
67%
(
59 of
88)
1st Serve %
62%
(
56 of
90)
0
Aces
4
5
Double Faults
6
64%
(
38 of
59)
1st Serve Won
68%
(
38 of
56)
48%
(
14 of
29)
2nd Serve Won
41%
(
14 of
34)
50%
(
3 of
6)
Break Points Won
33%
(
3 of
9)
41%
(
36 of
88)
Rtn Points Won
42%
(
38 of
90)
90
Total Points Won
88
|
1-6 6-3 6-4 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Anna-Lena Friedsam
Player
Matilde Paoletti
68%
(
47 of
69)
1st Serve %
72%
(
49 of
68)
3
Aces
0
5
Double Faults
2
70%
(
33 of
47)
1st Serve Won
53%
(
26 of
49)
32%
(
7 of
22)
2nd Serve Won
37%
(
7 of
19)
40%
(
6 of
15)
Break Points Won
36%
(
4 of
11)
42%
(
29 of
69)
Rtn Points Won
51%
(
35 of
68)
75
Total Points Won
62
|
1-6 6-2 6-0 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Anna-Lena Friedsam
Player
Lucija Ciric Bagaric
65%
(
42 of
65)
1st Serve %
55%
(
36 of
65)
8
Aces
3
2
Double Faults
6
71%
(
30 of
42)
1st Serve Won
64%
(
23 of
36)
61%
(
14 of
23)
2nd Serve Won
48%
(
14 of
29)
50%
(
3 of
6)
Break Points Won
50%
(
1 of
2)
32%
(
21 of
65)
Rtn Points Won
43%
(
28 of
65)
72
Total Points Won
58
|
6-4 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Anna-Lena Friedsam
Player
Francisca Jorge
72%
(
39 of
54)
1st Serve %
60%
(
28 of
47)
1
Aces
1
4
Double Faults
1
74%
(
29 of
39)
1st Serve Won
57%
(
16 of
28)
47%
(
7 of
15)
2nd Serve Won
37%
(
7 of
19)
40%
(
4 of
10)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
6)
33%
(
18 of
54)
Rtn Points Won
51%
(
24 of
47)
60
Total Points Won
41
|
6-3 6-1 | H2H | ||
| F |
Stats
Anna-Lena Friedsam
Player
Emily Appleton
67%
(
45 of
67)
1st Serve %
49%
(
45 of
91)
5
Aces
7
3
Double Faults
7
76%
(
34 of
45)
1st Serve Won
71%
(
32 of
45)
64%
(
14 of
22)
2nd Serve Won
46%
(
21 of
46)
38%
(
5 of
13)
Break Points Won
67%
(
2 of
3)
28%
(
19 of
67)
Rtn Points Won
42%
(
38 of
91)
86
Total Points Won
72
|
3-6 6-0 7-5 | H2H | ||
| SF |
Stats
Anna-Lena Friedsam
Player
Alisa Oktiabreva
53%
(
27 of
51)
1st Serve %
59%
(
32 of
54)
2
Aces
0
5
Double Faults
3
74%
(
20 of
27)
1st Serve Won
41%
(
13 of
32)
58%
(
14 of
24)
2nd Serve Won
45%
(
10 of
22)
56%
(
5 of
9)
Break Points Won
100%
(
1 of
1)
33%
(
17 of
51)
Rtn Points Won
57%
(
31 of
54)
65
Total Points Won
40
|
6-1 6-2 | H2H | ||
view more
Stats Breakdown Vs All H2H Opponents
Stats
52% (145/133)
Win/Loss
60% (375/249)
51% (331/317)
Sets Win/Loss
58% (845/604)
51% (3053/2981)
Games Win/Loss
54% (7214/6235)
49% (54/57)
Hard Win/Loss
56% (98/78)
57% (75/57)
Clay Win/Loss
59% (128/88)
48% (14/15)
Indoor Hard W/L
67% (133/65)
33% (2/4)
Grass Win/Loss
47% (16/18)
0.2
Aces Per Game
0.22
603
Aces Total
1464
0.39
Double Faults Per Game
0.23
1147
Total Double Faults
1543
1:39:32
Average Match Time
1:9:13
402.69
Average Opponent Rank
443.03
56% (10060/18104)
1st Serve %
65% (20517/31609)
62% (6229/10060)
1st Serve Win %
65% (13381/20517)
45% (3637/8044)
2nd Serve Win %
46% (5134/11090)
47% (1081/2302)
Break Points Won % (Total)
46% (1564/3422)
46% (8249/18068)
Return Points Win %
43% (13342/31297)
22% (2/7)
Slam W/L
36% (19/34)
22% (2/7)
Masters W/L
33% (10/20)
0% (0/0)
Cups W/L
40% (2/3)
44% (7/9)
Main Tour W/L
53% (101/89)
0% (0/0)
Tour Finals W/L
0% (0/0)
55% (118/98)
Challenger W/L
69% (192/88)
57% (16/12)
Futures W/L
77% (51/15)
51% (140/273)
Best of 3 Sets Win %
60% (367/611)
100% (2/2)
Best of 5 Sets Win %
100% (1/1)
41% (26/64)
Tiebreaks Win % (Total)
52% (83/161)
53% (49/93)
Deciding Set Win %
53% (111/210)
83% (139/116)
1st Set Won, Won Match
85% (375/320)
17% (139/23)
1st Set Won, Lost Match
14% (375/54)
20% (139/28)
1st Set Lost, Won Match
22% (249/54)
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]
