J. P. Jones
To Win
E. Nava
To Win
Emilio Nava vs Botic Van De Zandschulp Head-to-Head Stats, Results & Performance Comparison
By Wojtek Kolan
Form
W L L W L W W L W L
Form
L L W L W L W L L LH2H: Nava 1 - 0 Zandschulp
They have played 3 sets in total, with Nava winning 3 and Zandschulp winning 0. The last match between Nava and Zandschulp was at the French Open - Paris, 25-05-2025, Round: First, Surface: Clay, with Emilio Nava getting the victory 6-2 7-5 7-5.
| Players | Head-To-Head Match Wins |
|---|---|
| Emilio Nava | 1 |
| Botic Van De Zandschulp | 0 |
LAST H2H MATCH: French Open - Paris(25-05-2025)
Emilio Nava
Botic Van De Zandschulp
6
2
7
5
7
5
| Nava | Stats | Zandschulp |
|---|---|---|
| 69% (36-16) | YTD Win/Loss | 40% (10-15) |
| 1 | Head-to-Head | 0 |
| 121 | Ranking | 91 |
| 119 | Highest Rank | 22 |
| 23 | Age | 29 |
| R | Plays | R |
| 6 | Titles | 7 |
| 59% (224-153) | Career Total W/L | 61% (363-229) |
| $559,385 | Career Prize Money | $3,456,920 |
| 3 | YTD Titles | 0 |
| 1 | Clay H2H | 0 |
Upcoming Match
17 Jun 2025 / First
ODDS
Today’s Tennis Tips:
Halys VS Medvedev PREDICTION Grass
Terra Wortmann Open - Halle atp
18 Jun 2025 / Second
ODDS
OUR PREDICTION
EDGE
Humbert VS Shapovalov PREDICTION Grass
Terra Wortmann Open - Halle atp
16 Jun 2025 / First
ODDS
OUR PREDICTION
EDGE
Nava VS Zandschulp H2H Matches played
| Winning Player | Losing Player | Score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6-2 7-5 7-5 |
Stats 
Emilio Nava
Player
Botic Van De Zandschulp
68%
(
83 of
122)
1st Serve %
50%
(
63 of
125)
8
Aces
2
3
Double Faults
8
71%
(
59 of
83)
1st Serve Won
63%
(
40 of
63)
49%
(
19 of
39)
2nd Serve Won
45%
(
28 of
62)
46%
(
6 of
13)
Break Points Won
20%
(
2 of
10)
36%
(
44 of
122)
Rtn Points Won
46%
(
57 of
125)
135
Total Points Won
112
|
||||
Nava VS Zandschulp H2H Stats Used In Our Predictions
| Stats | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1 | H2H Matches | 0 |
| 3 | Sets Won | 0 |
| 20 | Games Won | 12 |
| 8 | Aces (Total) | 2 |
| 3 | Total Double Faults | 8 |
| 2:53:0 | Average Match Time | 2:53:0 |
| 68% (83/122) | 1st Serve % | 50% (63/125) |
| 71% (59/83) | 1st Serve Win % | 63% (40/63) |
| 49% (19/39) | 2nd Serve Win % | 45% (28/62) |
| 46% (6/13) | Break Points Won % (Total) | 20% (2/10) |
| 46% (57/125) | Return Points Win % | 36% (44/122) |
| 100% (1/1) | Best of 5 Sets Win % | 0% (0/1) |
| 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.
Nava vs Zandschulp Match Preview :
- Second Serve Strength: Nava has the edge in recent form, winning 46.87% of points on their second serve compared to Zandschulp's 42.08%. This is a significant metric for match predictions.
- Return Game Performance: Nava's success rate returning opponents' second serves is slightly higher at 47.12%, compared to Zandschulp's 46.3%. However, Zandschulp excels slightly in first serve returns at 27.42%, against Nava's 25.19%.
- Handling Pressure: Who copes better under pressure? Nava has a higher breakpoint save rate of 53.17%, surpassing Zandschulp's 48.39%, suggesting stronger mental resilience during critical points.
- Overall Match Wins: Over the last year, Nava maintains a higher overall win percentage at 59.49%, while Zandschulp holds a 50% win rate. Does this reflect a consistent edge for Nava?
- Surface Preference: Nava thrives on Clay courts with a 67% win rate, whereas Zandschulp's strength is on Indoor hard courts at 63%. Both players show weakness on Grass, but Zandschulp's record of 46% is better than Nava's 29%.
- Tournament Level Experience: Nava has a stronger winning percentage (65.71%) at the Challengers/ITF tournament level, while Zandschulp's record on the Main tour stands at 44.44%. Does facing generally tougher opponents benefit Zandschulp?
- Opponent Quality: Nava's recent matches have been against lower-ranked opponents with an average ranking of 269.15, while Zandschulp's opponents averaged a rank of 152.21, indicating they've faced stronger competitors.
- Deciding Set Efficiency: In tight matches decided by a third set, Nava has performed better, winning 52% of such scenarios, topping Zandschulp's 43% win rate in deciding sets.
- Breakpoint Conversion: Recently, Nava has shown slightly higher efficiency in converting breakpoint opportunities, with a 38.1% conversion rate compared to Zandschulp's 35.54%.
Editorial Prediction (May 25, 2025, UTC):
Analyzing each player's performance trends reveals strengths and potential vulnerabilities. Nava's superior second serve points win percentage suggests an upper hand in maintaining service games.
While Zandschulp exhibits strengths in first serve returns, Nava's general capability to win against slightly weaker opposition may imply higher control and confidence in rallies.
Nava exhibits better composure under pressure, with a higher breakpoint save rate, which can be crucial in tightly contested matches. Additionally, his ability to seal deciding sets reinforces Nava's edge in clutch situations.
However, it's essential to consider Zandschulp's experience against tougher opponents. This experience could translate to greater resilience and tactical awareness.
Overall, despite Zandschulp's experience advantage, Nava's notable lead in various recent match stats presents him as the likely favorite to win this upcoming match.
Nava vs Zandschulp Editorial Preview By TennisTipster88
Emilio Nava Recent Matches Played
Before:
| OPPONENT | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2 |
Stats
Federico Cina
Player
Emilio Nava
69%
(
42 of
61)
1st Serve %
63%
(
40 of
63)
2
Aces
8
2
Double Faults
2
83%
(
35 of
42)
1st Serve Won
80%
(
32 of
40)
53%
(
10 of
19)
2nd Serve Won
39%
(
9 of
23)
50%
(
2 of
4)
Break Points Won
100%
(
1 of
1)
26%
(
16 of
61)
Rtn Points Won
35%
(
22 of
63)
67
Total Points Won
57
|
7-6(3) 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Emilio Nava
Player
Andrej Martin
60%
(
24 of
40)
1st Serve %
47%
(
21 of
45)
5
Aces
0
1
Double Faults
7
92%
(
22 of
24)
1st Serve Won
67%
(
14 of
21)
44%
(
7 of
16)
2nd Serve Won
29%
(
7 of
24)
71%
(
5 of
7)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
2)
28%
(
11 of
40)
Rtn Points Won
53%
(
24 of
45)
53
Total Points Won
32
|
6-1 6-1 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Guy Den Ouden
Player
Emilio Nava
64%
(
47 of
74)
1st Serve %
62%
(
41 of
66)
7
Aces
7
6
Double Faults
5
70%
(
33 of
47)
1st Serve Won
61%
(
25 of
41)
41%
(
11 of
27)
2nd Serve Won
48%
(
12 of
25)
50%
(
4 of
8)
Break Points Won
40%
(
2 of
5)
41%
(
30 of
74)
Rtn Points Won
44%
(
29 of
66)
73
Total Points Won
67
|
7-5 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Emilio Nava
Player
Diego Dedura-Palomero
61%
(
37 of
61)
1st Serve %
76%
(
44 of
58)
6
Aces
1
2
Double Faults
3
76%
(
28 of
37)
1st Serve Won
75%
(
33 of
44)
63%
(
15 of
24)
2nd Serve Won
43%
(
6 of
14)
50%
(
2 of
4)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
30%
(
18 of
61)
Rtn Points Won
33%
(
19 of
58)
62
Total Points Won
57
|
6-4 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
.jpg)
Emilio Nava
Player
Marat Sharipov (RUS)
73%
(
40 of
55)
1st Serve %
47%
(
23 of
49)
6
Aces
3
2
Double Faults
3
75%
(
30 of
40)
1st Serve Won
74%
(
17 of
23)
47%
(
7 of
15)
2nd Serve Won
35%
(
9 of
26)
80%
(
4 of
5)
Break Points Won
20%
(
1 of
5)
33%
(
18 of
55)
Rtn Points Won
47%
(
23 of
49)
60
Total Points Won
44
|
6-3 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Holger Rune
Player
Emilio Nava
66%
(
64 of
97)
1st Serve %
68%
(
69 of
102)
4
Aces
5
3
Double Faults
6
73%
(
47 of
64)
1st Serve Won
65%
(
45 of
69)
64%
(
21 of
33)
2nd Serve Won
42%
(
14 of
33)
33%
(
4 of
12)
Break Points Won
22%
(
2 of
9)
30%
(
29 of
97)
Rtn Points Won
42%
(
43 of
102)
111
Total Points Won
88
|
6-3 7-6(5) 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Emilio Nava
Player
Botic Van De Zandschulp
68%
(
83 of
122)
1st Serve %
50%
(
63 of
125)
8
Aces
2
3
Double Faults
8
71%
(
59 of
83)
1st Serve Won
63%
(
40 of
63)
49%
(
19 of
39)
2nd Serve Won
45%
(
28 of
62)
46%
(
6 of
13)
Break Points Won
20%
(
2 of
10)
36%
(
44 of
122)
Rtn Points Won
46%
(
57 of
125)
135
Total Points Won
112
|
6-2 7-5 7-5 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Marko Topo
Player
Emilio Nava
68%
(
53 of
78)
1st Serve %
70%
(
55 of
79)
2
Aces
5
1
Double Faults
3
70%
(
37 of
53)
1st Serve Won
62%
(
34 of
55)
60%
(
15 of
25)
2nd Serve Won
58%
(
14 of
24)
44%
(
4 of
9)
Break Points Won
67%
(
2 of
3)
33%
(
26 of
78)
Rtn Points Won
39%
(
31 of
79)
83
Total Points Won
74
|
6-3 3-6 6-2 | H2H | ||
view more
Botic Van De Zandschulp Recent Matches Played
Before:
| OPPONENT | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 |
Stats
Emilio Nava
Player
Botic Van De Zandschulp
68%
(
83 of
122)
1st Serve %
50%
(
63 of
125)
8
Aces
2
3
Double Faults
8
71%
(
59 of
83)
1st Serve Won
63%
(
40 of
63)
49%
(
19 of
39)
2nd Serve Won
45%
(
28 of
62)
46%
(
6 of
13)
Break Points Won
20%
(
2 of
10)
36%
(
44 of
122)
Rtn Points Won
46%
(
57 of
125)
135
Total Points Won
112
|
6-2 7-5 7-5 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Jan-Lennard Struff
Player
Botic Van De Zandschulp
56%
(
37 of
66)
1st Serve %
55%
(
42 of
77)
5
Aces
9
0
Double Faults
5
70%
(
26 of
37)
1st Serve Won
79%
(
33 of
42)
59%
(
17 of
29)
2nd Serve Won
34%
(
12 of
35)
50%
(
4 of
8)
Break Points Won
50%
(
3 of
6)
35%
(
23 of
66)
Rtn Points Won
42%
(
32 of
77)
75
Total Points Won
68
|
7-5 2-6 4-1 ret. | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Juan Manuel Cerundolo
Player
Botic Van De Zandschulp
63%
(
72 of
115)
1st Serve %
69%
(
84 of
122)
6
Aces
9
5
Double Faults
1
65%
(
47 of
72)
1st Serve Won
73%
(
61 of
84)
56%
(
24 of
43)
2nd Serve Won
34%
(
13 of
38)
36%
(
4 of
11)
Break Points Won
56%
(
5 of
9)
38%
(
44 of
115)
Rtn Points Won
39%
(
48 of
122)
119
Total Points Won
118
|
7-6(3) 5-7 7-6(5) | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Botic Van De Zandschulp
Player
Moise Kouame
59%
(
32 of
54)
1st Serve %
45%
(
24 of
53)
2
Aces
3
2
Double Faults
6
84%
(
27 of
32)
1st Serve Won
54%
(
13 of
24)
55%
(
12 of
22)
2nd Serve Won
52%
(
15 of
29)
75%
(
3 of
4)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
2)
28%
(
15 of
54)
Rtn Points Won
47%
(
25 of
53)
64
Total Points Won
43
|
6-3 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Ben Shelton
Player
Botic Van De Zandschulp
68%
(
40 of
59)
1st Serve %
59%
(
40 of
68)
3
Aces
4
2
Double Faults
5
83%
(
33 of
40)
1st Serve Won
68%
(
27 of
40)
58%
(
11 of
19)
2nd Serve Won
50%
(
14 of
28)
100%
(
3 of
3)
Break Points Won
100%
(
1 of
1)
25%
(
15 of
59)
Rtn Points Won
40%
(
27 of
68)
71
Total Points Won
56
|
7-6(1) 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Botic Van De Zandschulp
Player
Roberto Bautista Agut
72%
(
60 of
83)
1st Serve %
66%
(
64 of
97)
11
Aces
0
4
Double Faults
1
77%
(
46 of
60)
1st Serve Won
66%
(
42 of
64)
43%
(
10 of
23)
2nd Serve Won
58%
(
19 of
33)
18%
(
2 of
11)
Break Points Won
67%
(
2 of
3)
33%
(
27 of
83)
Rtn Points Won
37%
(
36 of
97)
92
Total Points Won
88
|
6-4 3-6 6-4 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Learner Tien
Player
Botic Van De Zandschulp
58%
(
29 of
50)
1st Serve %
48%
(
26 of
54)
1
Aces
0
1
Double Faults
4
76%
(
22 of
29)
1st Serve Won
62%
(
16 of
26)
48%
(
10 of
21)
2nd Serve Won
29%
(
8 of
28)
63%
(
5 of
8)
Break Points Won
25%
(
1 of
4)
36%
(
18 of
50)
Rtn Points Won
56%
(
30 of
54)
62
Total Points Won
42
|
6-2 6-2 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Botic Van De Zandschulp
Player
Max Hans Rehberg
56%
(
25 of
45)
1st Serve %
52%
(
24 of
46)
3
Aces
1
2
Double Faults
6
84%
(
21 of
25)
1st Serve Won
71%
(
17 of
24)
65%
(
13 of
20)
2nd Serve Won
32%
(
7 of
22)
80%
(
4 of
5)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
1)
24%
(
11 of
45)
Rtn Points Won
48%
(
22 of
46)
56
Total Points Won
35
|
6-3 6-1 | H2H | ||
view more
Stats Breakdown Vs All H2H Opponents
| Stats | ||
|---|---|---|
| 59% (224/153) | Win/Loss | 61% (363/229) |
| 56% (498/388) | Sets Win/Loss | 58% (828/596) |
| 52% (4483/4168) | Games Win/Loss | 53% (7136/6319) |
| 55% (89/73) | Hard Win/Loss | 58% (68/49) |
| 67% (105/52) | Clay Win/Loss | 61% (170/107) |
| 55% (28/23) | Indoor Hard W/L | 66% (114/60) |
| 29% (2/5) | Grass Win/Loss | 46% (11/13) |
| 0.52 | Aces Per Game | 0.44 |
| 2198 | Aces Total | 2894 |
| 0.25 | Double Faults Per Game | 0.33 |
| 1065 | Total Double Faults | 2150 |
| 1:36:41 | Average Match Time | 1:35:47 |
| 371.53 | Average Opponent Rank | 394.24 |
| 63% (16306/26034) | 1st Serve % | 62% (24150/39247) |
| 71% (11557/16306) | 1st Serve Win % | 71% (17255/24150) |
| 51% (5003/9728) | 2nd Serve Win % | 48% (7266/15100) |
| 42% (969/2313) | Break Points Won % (Total) | 43% (1783/4137) |
| 38% (9866/26080) | Return Points Win % | 41% (16425/40418) |
| 54% (13/11) | Slam W/L | 60% (32/21) |
| 40% (8/12) | Masters W/L | 49% (26/27) |
| 0% (0/0) | Cups W/L | 63% (12/7) |
| 41% (9/13) | Main Tour W/L | 50% (66/65) |
| 62% (146/91) | Challenger W/L | 63% (72/42) |
| 65% (48/26) | Futures W/L | 70% (155/67) |
| 60% (218/366) | Best of 3 Sets Win % | 62% (336/539) |
| 44% (4/9) | Best of 5 Sets Win % | 50% (20/40) |
| 48% (76/160) | Tiebreaks Win % (Total) | 55% (100/183) |
| 61% (74/122) | Deciding Set Win % | 57% (112/195) |
| 87% (209/181) | 1st Set Won, Won Match | 89% (342/303) |
| 13% (209/28) | 1st Set Won, Lost Match | 11% (342/38) |
| 25% (168/42) | 1st Set Lost, Won Match | 24% (248/59) |
Nava vs. Zandschulp Prediction Form Trend:
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]
