L. Tien
To Win
E. Nava
To Win
Emilio Nava vs Marat Sharipov (RUS) Head-to-Head Stats, Results & Performance Comparison
By Wojtek Kolan
Form
W L W W L W L W W LHead-2-Head: Nava 1 - 0 (RUS)
They have played 2 sets in total, with Nava winning 2 and (RUS) winning 0. The last match between Nava and (RUS) was at the Heilbronn Challenger, 03-06-2025, Round: First, Surface: Clay, with Emilio Nava getting the victory 6-3 6-3.
| Players | Head-To-Head Match Wins |
|---|---|
| Emilio Nava | 1 |
| Marat Sharipov (RUS) | 0 |
LAST H2H MATCH: Heilbronn Challenger(03-06-2025)
Emilio Nava
Marat Sharipov (RUS)
6
3
6
3
| Nava | Stats | (RUS) |
|---|---|---|
| 68% (41-19) | YTD Win/Loss | 68% (34-16) |
| 1 | Head-to-Head | 0 |
| 123 | Ranking | 288 |
| 119 | Highest Rank | 243 |
| 23 | Age | 22 |
| R | Plays | - |
| 6 | Titles | 0 |
| 59% (229-156) | Career Total W/L | 67% (176-88) |
| $600,885 | Career Prize Money | $0 |
| 3 | YTD Titles | 0 |
| 1 | Clay H2H | 0 |
Upcoming Match
20 Jul 2025 / First
ODDS
Upcoming Match
21 Jul 2025 / First
Today’s Tennis Tips:
Palicova VS Hon PREDICTION Hard
Prague Open - Prague wta
21 Jul 2025 / First
ODDS
OUR PREDICTION
EDGE
Mikrut VS Meza PREDICTION Clay
Plava Laguna Croatia Open - Umag atp
20 Jul 2025 / Q3
ODDS
OUR PREDICTION
EDGE
| Winning Player | Losing Player | Score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6-3 6-3 |
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
|
||||
| Stats | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1 | H2H Matches | 0 |
| 2 | Sets Won | 0 |
| 12 | Games Won | 6 |
| 6 | Aces (Total) | 3 |
| 2 | Total Double Faults | 3 |
| 1:6:54 | Average Match Time | 1:6:54 |
| 73% (40/55) | 1st Serve % | 47% (23/49) |
| 75% (30/40) | 1st Serve Win % | 74% (17/23) |
| 47% (7/15) | 2nd Serve Win % | 35% (9/26) |
| 80% (4/5) | Break Points Won % (Total) | 20% (1/5) |
| 47% (23/49) | Return Points Win % | 33% (18/55) |
| 100% (1/1) | Best of 3 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 (RUS) Match Preview :
- Second Serve Performance: Recently, RUS has been winning 46.62% of points on their second serve, closely matched by Nava's 46.68%. What does this imply? It suggests both players have similar effectiveness on second serves in the last six months.
- Return Game Strength: When returning an opponent's second serve, RUS has achieved a 46.76% success rate compared to Nava's slight advantage at 46.96%. On first serve returns, Nava also leads, winning 25.38% of points against RUS's 23.56%. Could this give Nava an edge by pressuring RUS's service games?
- Under Pressure Performance: RUS has displayed superior ability in saving breakpoints with a 57.58% saving rate, while Nava's rate is 53.61%. This indicates RUS may handle pressure situations more effectively.
- Match Outcomes: Over the past year, RUS has not recorded any wins, contrasting with Nava's 59.26% match win rate. Isn't this a significant indicator of overall form and likely match direction?
- Opponent Quality: Nava has been playing against opponents with an average ranking of 265.25, suggesting slightly tougher competition than RUS has faced, possibly honing Nava's competitive edge.
- Deciding Set Resilience: In matches that reach a deciding set, Nava has a 52% win rate compared to RUS's 0% win rate. Could this be crucial if the match tightens?
- Breakpoint Conversion: Nava is slightly more efficient at converting breakpoints, achieving a 36.54% conversion rate versus RUS's 35.23%. Can this small edge lead to more service breaks?
Editorial Prediction (June 3, 2025, UTC):
The comparisons show that Nava edges RUS in several critical aspects, such as return game performance and stubbornness in deciding sets. These indicators could play a significant role during key match moments.
Although both players demonstrate similar performance on second serves, Nava's advantage in match play experience and overall win rate provides a clearer expectation of proficiency under match conditions.
Given Nava's consistent track record in matches and ability to handle high-pressure situations effectively, Nava is likely favored to triumph in this upcoming contest.
Nava vs (RUS) Editorial Preview By TennisTipster88
Emilio Nava Recent Matches Played
Before:
| OPPONENT | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QF |
Stats
Andrey Rublev
Player
Emilio Nava
59%
(
49 of
83)
1st Serve %
56%
(
51 of
91)
5
Aces
6
4
Double Faults
5
76%
(
37 of
49)
1st Serve Won
75%
(
38 of
51)
53%
(
18 of
34)
2nd Serve Won
50%
(
20 of
40)
36%
(
4 of
11)
Break Points Won
100%
(
3 of
3)
34%
(
28 of
83)
Rtn Points Won
36%
(
33 of
91)
88
Total Points Won
86
|
5-7 6-4 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Emilio Nava
Player
Bu Yunchaokete
61%
(
69 of
113)
1st Serve %
58%
(
71 of
123)
14
Aces
8
5
Double Faults
3
84%
(
58 of
69)
1st Serve Won
75%
(
53 of
71)
41%
(
18 of
44)
2nd Serve Won
52%
(
27 of
52)
11%
(
1 of
9)
Break Points Won
14%
(
1 of
7)
33%
(
37 of
113)
Rtn Points Won
35%
(
43 of
123)
119
Total Points Won
117
|
3-6 7-5 7-6(6) | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Emilio Nava
Player
Aleksandar Vukic
46%
(
36 of
79)
1st Serve %
57%
(
34 of
60)
11
Aces
4
6
Double Faults
0
83%
(
30 of
36)
1st Serve Won
71%
(
24 of
34)
44%
(
19 of
43)
2nd Serve Won
42%
(
11 of
26)
60%
(
3 of
5)
Break Points Won
33%
(
2 of
6)
38%
(
30 of
79)
Rtn Points Won
42%
(
25 of
60)
74
Total Points Won
65
|
7-6(4) 6-3 | H2H | ||
| Q2 |
Stats
Dominic Stricker
Player
Emilio Nava
64%
(
50 of
78)
1st Serve %
61%
(
36 of
59)
5
Aces
10
2
Double Faults
0
82%
(
41 of
50)
1st Serve Won
83%
(
30 of
36)
50%
(
14 of
28)
2nd Serve Won
61%
(
14 of
23)
25%
(
1 of
4)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
2)
29%
(
23 of
78)
Rtn Points Won
25%
(
15 of
59)
70
Total Points Won
67
|
7-6(2) 6-4 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Emilio Nava
Player
Mitchell Krueger
65%
(
52 of
80)
1st Serve %
75%
(
57 of
76)
21
Aces
1
3
Double Faults
2
83%
(
43 of
52)
1st Serve Won
70%
(
40 of
57)
57%
(
16 of
28)
2nd Serve Won
79%
(
15 of
19)
0%
(
0 of
0)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
1)
26%
(
21 of
80)
Rtn Points Won
28%
(
21 of
76)
80
Total Points Won
76
|
7-6(6) 7-6(3) | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Colton Smith
Player
Emilio Nava
64%
(
69 of
107)
1st Serve %
60%
(
59 of
98)
6
Aces
11
1
Double Faults
4
71%
(
49 of
69)
1st Serve Won
78%
(
46 of
59)
55%
(
21 of
38)
2nd Serve Won
38%
(
15 of
39)
44%
(
4 of
9)
Break Points Won
40%
(
2 of
5)
35%
(
37 of
107)
Rtn Points Won
38%
(
37 of
98)
107
Total Points Won
98
|
6-7(5) 6-4 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Emilio Nava
Player
Ryan Peniston
61%
(
43 of
70)
1st Serve %
67%
(
47 of
70)
12
Aces
2
4
Double Faults
1
77%
(
33 of
43)
1st Serve Won
60%
(
28 of
47)
52%
(
14 of
27)
2nd Serve Won
70%
(
16 of
23)
50%
(
3 of
6)
Break Points Won
40%
(
2 of
5)
33%
(
23 of
70)
Rtn Points Won
37%
(
26 of
70)
73
Total Points Won
67
|
7-6(5) 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Emilio Nava
Player
Jack Pinnington Jones
71%
(
79 of
112)
1st Serve %
60%
(
73 of
121)
26
Aces
5
2
Double Faults
11
84%
(
66 of
79)
1st Serve Won
74%
(
54 of
73)
45%
(
15 of
33)
2nd Serve Won
48%
(
23 of
48)
18%
(
2 of
11)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
9)
28%
(
31 of
112)
Rtn Points Won
36%
(
44 of
121)
125
Total Points Won
108
|
6-3 6-7(10) 6-3 | H2H | ||
view more
Marat Sharipov (RUS) Recent Matches Played
Before:
| OPPONENT | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | 6-4 7-6(1) | H2H | |||
| SF |
Stats
Marat Sharipov (RUS)
Player
Tristan Lamasine
53%
(
49 of
93)
1st Serve %
56%
(
48 of
85)
10
Aces
4
3
Double Faults
7
78%
(
38 of
49)
1st Serve Won
71%
(
34 of
48)
45%
(
20 of
44)
2nd Serve Won
51%
(
19 of
37)
50%
(
3 of
6)
Break Points Won
100%
(
3 of
3)
38%
(
35 of
93)
Rtn Points Won
38%
(
32 of
85)
90
Total Points Won
88
|
7-6(7) 7-6(5) | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Marat Sharipov (RUS)
Player
Johan Nikles
53%
(
32 of
60)
1st Serve %
52%
(
31 of
60)
5
Aces
0
0
Double Faults
3
75%
(
24 of
32)
1st Serve Won
61%
(
19 of
31)
46%
(
13 of
28)
2nd Serve Won
38%
(
11 of
29)
67%
(
4 of
6)
Break Points Won
50%
(
2 of
4)
38%
(
23 of
60)
Rtn Points Won
50%
(
30 of
60)
67
Total Points Won
53
|
6-3 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Marat Sharipov (RUS)
Player
Paul Inchauspe
45%
(
42 of
94)
1st Serve %
48%
(
53 of
111)
11
Aces
4
8
Double Faults
6
83%
(
35 of
42)
1st Serve Won
68%
(
36 of
53)
52%
(
27 of
52)
2nd Serve Won
53%
(
31 of
58)
36%
(
4 of
11)
Break Points Won
50%
(
4 of
8)
34%
(
32 of
94)
Rtn Points Won
40%
(
44 of
111)
106
Total Points Won
99
|
7-6(5) 5-7 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Marat Sharipov (RUS)
Player
Noah Karma
67%
(
14 of
21)
1st Serve %
52%
(
13 of
25)
3
Aces
0
3
Double Faults
1
64%
(
9 of
14)
1st Serve Won
54%
(
7 of
13)
57%
(
4 of
7)
2nd Serve Won
17%
(
2 of
12)
60%
(
3 of
5)
Break Points Won
50%
(
1 of
2)
38%
(
8 of
21)
Rtn Points Won
64%
(
16 of
25)
29
Total Points Won
17
|
5-2 ret. | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Javier Barranco Cosano
Player
Marat Sharipov (RUS)
62%
(
38 of
61)
1st Serve %
50%
(
34 of
68)
5
Aces
9
4
Double Faults
4
84%
(
32 of
38)
1st Serve Won
76%
(
26 of
34)
48%
(
11 of
23)
2nd Serve Won
29%
(
10 of
34)
36%
(
4 of
11)
Break Points Won
13%
(
1 of
8)
30%
(
18 of
61)
Rtn Points Won
47%
(
32 of
68)
75
Total Points Won
54
|
6-2 7-5 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Joel Schwaerzler
Player
Marat Sharipov (RUS)
62%
(
56 of
90)
1st Serve %
60%
(
58 of
97)
3
Aces
6
4
Double Faults
2
64%
(
36 of
56)
1st Serve Won
66%
(
38 of
58)
41%
(
14 of
34)
2nd Serve Won
51%
(
20 of
39)
44%
(
4 of
9)
Break Points Won
71%
(
5 of
7)
44%
(
40 of
90)
Rtn Points Won
40%
(
39 of
97)
89
Total Points Won
98
|
6-3 2-6 7-6(11) | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Marat Sharipov (RUS)
Player
Giammarco Gandolfi
59%
(
22 of
37)
1st Serve %
68%
(
25 of
37)
2
Aces
0
1
Double Faults
2
82%
(
18 of
22)
1st Serve Won
40%
(
10 of
25)
73%
(
11 of
15)
2nd Serve Won
25%
(
3 of
12)
50%
(
5 of
10)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
2)
22%
(
8 of
37)
Rtn Points Won
65%
(
24 of
37)
53
Total Points Won
21
|
6-1 6-0 | H2H | ||
view more
Stats Breakdown Vs All H2H Opponents
| Stats | ||
|---|---|---|
| 59% (229/156) | Win/Loss | 67% (176/88) |
| 56% (510/396) | Sets Win/Loss | 0% (0/0) |
| 52% (4597/4277) | Games Win/Loss | 0% (0/0) |
| 55% (91/74) | Hard Win/Loss | 75% (87/29) |
| 67% (105/52) | Clay Win/Loss | 61% (69/45) |
| 55% (28/23) | Indoor Hard W/L | 59% (20/14) |
| 42% (5/7) | Grass Win/Loss | 0% (0/0) |
| 0.53 | Aces Per Game | 0 |
| 2309 | Aces Total | 0 |
| 0.25 | Double Faults Per Game | 0 |
| 1094 | Total Double Faults | 0 |
| 1:37:16 | Average Match Time | 1st Match |
| 367.69 | Average Opponent Rank | 0 |
| 63% (16731/26736) | 1st Serve % | 0% (0/0) |
| 71% (11901/16731) | 1st Serve Win % | 0% (0/0) |
| 51% (5134/10005) | 2nd Serve Win % | 0% (0/0) |
| 42% (983/2354) | Break Points Won % (Total) | 0% (0/0) |
| 38% (10113/26798) | Return Points Win % | 0% (0/0) |
| 54% (14/12) | Slam W/L | 0% (0/0) |
| 40% (8/12) | Masters W/L | 0% (0/0) |
| 44% (11/14) | Main Tour W/L | 0% (0/1) |
| 62% (148/92) | Challenger W/L | 59% (23/16) |
| 65% (48/26) | Futures W/L | 68% (153/71) |
| 60% (223/374) | Best of 3 Sets Win % | 0% (0/0) |
| 44% (4/9) | Best of 5 Sets Win % | 0% (0/0) |
| 49% (82/168) | Tiebreaks Win % (Total) | 0% (0/0) |
| 60% (76/126) | Deciding Set Win % | 0% (0/0) |
| 86% (215/185) | 1st Set Won, Won Match | 0% (0/0) |
| 14% (215/30) | 1st Set Won, Lost Match | 0% (0/0) |
| 25% (170/43) | 1st Set Lost, Won Match | 0% (0/0) |
Nava vs. (RUS) Prediction Form Trend:
-h2h-seo-profile.webp "Emilio Nava vs Marat Sharipov (RUS) Form Prediction")
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]
