Federica Urgesi vs Tiantsoa Rakotomanga Rajaonah Head-to-Head Stats, Results & Performance Comparison
By Wojtek Kolan
Form
L L W L W W L W L L
Form
W L W W W W W L W LHead-2-Head: Urgesi 0 - 1 Rajaonah
They have played 3 sets in total, with Urgesi winning 1 and Rajaonah winning 2. The last match between Urgesi and Rajaonah was at the W35 Manchester, 18-02-2025, First, I.hard with Tiantsoa Rakotomanga Rajaonah getting the victory 6-2 2-6 6-3.
| Players | Head-To-Head Match Wins |
|---|---|
| Federica Urgesi | 0 |
| Tiantsoa Rakotomanga Rajaonah | 1 |
W35 Manchester(18-02-2025)
6
2
2
6
6
3
| Urgesi | Stats | Rajaonah |
|---|---|---|
| 57% (8-6) | YTD Win/Loss | 69% (9-4) |
| 0 | Head-to-Head | 1 |
| 464 | Ranking | 303 |
| 464 | Highest Rank | 299 |
| 20 | Age | 19 |
| - | Plays | - |
| 0 | Titles | 4 |
| 50% (59-59) | Career Total W/L | 63% (94-55) |
| $0 | Career Prize Money | $0 |
| 0 | YTD Titles | 0 |
| 0 | Hard H2H | 0 |
| 0 | Clay H2H | 0 |
| 0 | Indoor H2H | 1 |
| 0 | Grass H2H | 0 |
Today’s Tennis Tips:
Sabalenka VS Pegula PREDICTION Hard
Miami Open - Miami wta
28 Mar 2025 / Final
ODDS
PREDICTION
EDGE
Mensik VS Fritz PREDICTION Hard
Miami Open - Miami atp
29 Mar 2025 / Semifinals
ODDS
PREDICTION
EDGE
| Winning Player | Losing Player | Score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6-2 2-6 6-3 |
Stats 
Tiantsoa Rakotomanga Rajaonah
Player
Federica Urgesi
65%
(
49 of
75)
1st Serve %
61%
(
53 of
87)
1
Aces
1
4
Double Faults
2
65%
(
32 of
49)
1st Serve Won
64%
(
34 of
53)
42%
(
11 of
26)
2nd Serve Won
38%
(
13 of
34)
29%
(
5 of
17)
Break Points Won
57%
(
4 of
7)
43%
(
32 of
75)
Rtn Points Won
46%
(
40 of
87)
83
Total Points Won
79
|
||||
| Stats | ||
|---|---|---|
| 0 | H2H Matches | 1 |
| 1 | Sets Won | 2 |
| 11 | Games Won | 14 |
| 1 | Aces (Total) | 1 |
| 2 | Total Double Faults | 4 |
| 0:37:46 | Average Match Time | 0:37:46 |
| 61% (53/87) | 1st Serve % | 65% (49/75) |
| 64% (34/53) | 1st Serve Win % | 65% (32/49) |
| 38% (13/34) | 2nd Serve Win % | 42% (11/26) |
| 57% (4/7) | Break Points Won % (Total) | 29% (5/17) |
| 43% (32/75) | Return Points Win % | 46% (40/87) |
| 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% (0/1) | Deciding Set Win % | 100% (1/1) |
| 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.
Federica Urgesi vs Tiantsoa Rakotomanga Rajaonah Important H2H Prediction Stats:
Head-to-head: Federica Urgesi 0 - 1 Tiantsoa Rakotomanga Rajaonah
- Inconsistency in second serve: In the past six months, Urgesi and Rajaonah showcased a slight difference in their performance when serving their second serve. Urgesi managed to win 44.86% of points, while Rajaonah achieved a slightly higher success rate of 45.94%. Notably, this statistic correlates significantly with the accuracy of match predictions.
- Return game prowess: Examining recent return game statistics, Urgesi has proven to be particularly formidable. During this period, Urgesi successfully secured 55.96% of their opponent's second serve points. Conversely, Rajaonah displayed commendable form, winning 52.77% of such points. Evaluating first serve returns, Urgesi achieved a success rate of 40.62%, while Rajaonah performed slightly better at 42.14%. These return game statistics hold considerable weight in determining the favorable player in their head-to-head matchup.
- Grace under pressure: When facing crucial moments, Urgesi exhibited composure by saving 54.22% of breakpoints in recent matches. Conversely, Rajaonah showcased an even higher ability to withstand pressure, saving 57.87% of breakpoints. This invaluable statistic serves as a useful tool for making predictions during in-game betting.
- Performance analysis: Over the past year, Urgesi emerged victorious in 59.02% of matches played, boasting a win-loss record of 36/25. Similarly, Rajaonah achieved a slightly higher success rate, winning 59.38% of matches with a record of 38/26. Considering their head-to-head encounters, these figures provide valuable insights for predicting the overall outcome.
- Mastery of different surfaces: Each player has distinct levels of proficiency on different court surfaces. Urgesi dominates on I.hard courts with an impressive win percentage of 67% (W/L 10/5), while their performance on Hard courts faltered with a lower win percentage of 43% (W/L 3/4). In contrast, Rajaonah excels on Clay courts, achieving a remarkable win percentage of 67% (W/L 74/36). However, Rajaonah struggles on I.hard courts, attaining a win percentage of only 38% (W/L 6/10).
- Player level and competition: In the previous year, Urgesi predominantly competed in Challenger/ITF tournaments with a prize pool exceeding $10,000. Remarkably, Urgesi triumphed in 60.78% of matches (W/L 31/20) within this sphere. Similarly, Rajaonah frequently participated in Challenger/ITF tournaments with the same prize range, securing victory in 56% of matches (W/L 28/22). It is important to consider these contextual factors when comparing statistics to predict a favorite, as results are contingent upon the level of the events they have competed in.
- Opponent quality: In the last 12 months, Urgesi encountered opponents with an average rank of 441.56, while Rajaonah faced players with an average rank of 421.05. These statistics shed light on the caliber of opposition each player has encountered, which would influence their respective performances.
- Deciding set prowess: For those captivated by the excitement of live predictions and betting, it is crucial to consider the players' track record in deciding sets. In the past year, Urgesi emerged victorious in 56% of such sets, showcasing admirable resilience. On the other hand, Rajaonah attained a success rate of 48% in all matches played on tour. These statistics play a pivotal role in forecasting the outcome when the match hangs on a knife's edge.
- Current event statistics: Historical player performance proves invaluable when predicting tennis matches. However, once an event commences, it becomes essential to examine the players' current event statistics. This allows us to gauge their current form and momentum. You can find the most up-to-date information in the section below, particularly if either player has already played a match in the ongoing event. Additionally, it is important to consider that certain players may thrive in specific events, and this aspect must be considered when forecasting the final result.
- Breakpoint conversion: Presently, Urgesi exhibits impressive breakpoint conversion, successfully capitalizing on 45.28% of the opportunities presented. Rajaonah follows closely, converting 47.59% of their chances to break their opponents' serve. These statistics provide crucial insights for in-game live betting, especially when either player encounters a breakpoint opportunity.
- If you have a keen interest in models that accurately predict tennis matches, this article serves as an excellent starting point. However, it is worth highlighting that this resource caters specifically to statistics enthusiasts.
Federica Urgesi Recent Matches Played
Before:
| OPPONENT | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 |
Stats
Natalija Stevanovic
Player
Federica Urgesi
60%
(
50 of
84)
1st Serve %
65%
(
54 of
83)
2
Aces
0
3
Double Faults
4
64%
(
32 of
50)
1st Serve Won
50%
(
27 of
54)
44%
(
15 of
34)
2nd Serve Won
48%
(
14 of
29)
40%
(
6 of
15)
Break Points Won
36%
(
4 of
11)
44%
(
37 of
84)
Rtn Points Won
51%
(
42 of
83)
89
Total Points Won
78
|
5-7 6-1 6-1 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Weronika Falkowska
Player
Federica Urgesi
63%
(
42 of
67)
1st Serve %
65%
(
42 of
65)
3
Aces
2
0
Double Faults
6
69%
(
29 of
42)
1st Serve Won
57%
(
24 of
42)
48%
(
12 of
25)
2nd Serve Won
35%
(
8 of
23)
71%
(
5 of
7)
Break Points Won
100%
(
3 of
3)
39%
(
26 of
67)
Rtn Points Won
51%
(
33 of
65)
74
Total Points Won
58
|
7-5 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R2 | w/o | H2H | |||
| R1 |
Stats
Federica Urgesi
Player
Elena Korokozidi
53%
(
61 of
115)
1st Serve %
47%
(
47 of
101)
3
Aces
0
7
Double Faults
12
62%
(
38 of
61)
1st Serve Won
53%
(
25 of
47)
35%
(
19 of
54)
2nd Serve Won
39%
(
21 of
54)
69%
(
9 of
13)
Break Points Won
58%
(
7 of
12)
50%
(
58 of
115)
Rtn Points Won
54%
(
55 of
101)
112
Total Points Won
104
|
5-7 7-6(6) 6-0 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Tiantsoa Rakotomanga Rajaonah
Player
Federica Urgesi
65%
(
49 of
75)
1st Serve %
61%
(
53 of
87)
1
Aces
1
4
Double Faults
2
65%
(
32 of
49)
1st Serve Won
64%
(
34 of
53)
42%
(
11 of
26)
2nd Serve Won
38%
(
13 of
34)
29%
(
5 of
17)
Break Points Won
57%
(
4 of
7)
43%
(
32 of
75)
Rtn Points Won
46%
(
40 of
87)
83
Total Points Won
79
|
6-2 2-6 6-3 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Federica Urgesi
Player
Ella Mcdonald
66%
(
43 of
65)
1st Serve %
68%
(
58 of
85)
4
Aces
5
4
Double Faults
0
65%
(
28 of
43)
1st Serve Won
57%
(
33 of
58)
50%
(
11 of
22)
2nd Serve Won
52%
(
14 of
27)
27%
(
3 of
11)
Break Points Won
50%
(
4 of
8)
40%
(
26 of
65)
Rtn Points Won
45%
(
38 of
85)
77
Total Points Won
73
|
2-6 7-5 10-6 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Federica Urgesi
Player
Victoria Allen
67%
(
44 of
66)
1st Serve %
65%
(
51 of
79)
2
Aces
9
2
Double Faults
2
55%
(
24 of
44)
1st Serve Won
61%
(
31 of
51)
64%
(
14 of
22)
2nd Serve Won
43%
(
12 of
28)
27%
(
3 of
11)
Break Points Won
30%
(
3 of
10)
42%
(
28 of
66)
Rtn Points Won
46%
(
36 of
79)
74
Total Points Won
71
|
6-3 3-6 10-7 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Hiromi Abe
Player
Federica Urgesi
70%
(
32 of
46)
1st Serve %
67%
(
36 of
54)
0
Aces
1
0
Double Faults
0
75%
(
24 of
32)
1st Serve Won
56%
(
20 of
36)
43%
(
6 of
14)
2nd Serve Won
39%
(
7 of
18)
80%
(
4 of
5)
Break Points Won
100%
(
1 of
1)
35%
(
16 of
46)
Rtn Points Won
50%
(
27 of
54)
57
Total Points Won
43
|
6-1 7-6(5) | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Federica Urgesi
Player
Heidi Crncan
81%
(
34 of
42)
1st Serve %
63%
(
39 of
62)
4
Aces
0
1
Double Faults
1
79%
(
27 of
34)
1st Serve Won
51%
(
20 of
39)
38%
(
3 of
8)
2nd Serve Won
39%
(
9 of
23)
56%
(
5 of
9)
Break Points Won
33%
(
1 of
3)
29%
(
12 of
42)
Rtn Points Won
53%
(
33 of
62)
63
Total Points Won
41
|
6-0 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Jana Otzipka
Player
Federica Urgesi
60%
(
52 of
86)
1st Serve %
61%
(
56 of
92)
3
Aces
9
9
Double Faults
8
69%
(
36 of
52)
1st Serve Won
61%
(
34 of
56)
41%
(
14 of
34)
2nd Serve Won
42%
(
15 of
36)
50%
(
8 of
16)
Break Points Won
57%
(
4 of
7)
42%
(
36 of
86)
Rtn Points Won
47%
(
43 of
92)
93
Total Points Won
85
|
6-3 6-7(3) 6-3 | H2H | ||
view more
Tiantsoa Rakotomanga Rajaonah Recent Matches Played
Before:
| OPPONENT | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2 |
Stats
Ksenia Zaytseva
Player
Tiantsoa Rakotomanga Rajaonah
59%
(
64 of
108)
1st Serve %
55%
(
66 of
119)
0
Aces
0
21
Double Faults
13
61%
(
39 of
64)
1st Serve Won
50%
(
33 of
66)
25%
(
11 of
44)
2nd Serve Won
32%
(
17 of
53)
44%
(
11 of
25)
Break Points Won
50%
(
9 of
18)
54%
(
58 of
108)
Rtn Points Won
58%
(
69 of
119)
119
Total Points Won
108
|
6-4 6-7(6) 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Tiantsoa Rakotomanga Rajaonah
Player
Priyanshi Bhandari
58%
(
21 of
36)
1st Serve %
54%
(
29 of
54)
5
Aces
0
2
Double Faults
6
86%
(
18 of
21)
1st Serve Won
48%
(
14 of
29)
53%
(
8 of
15)
2nd Serve Won
32%
(
8 of
25)
60%
(
6 of
10)
Break Points Won
100%
(
1 of
1)
28%
(
10 of
36)
Rtn Points Won
59%
(
32 of
54)
58
Total Points Won
32
|
6-2 6-1 | H2H | ||
| F |
Stats
Sinja Kraus
Player
Tiantsoa Rakotomanga Rajaonah
69%
(
40 of
58)
1st Serve %
49%
(
29 of
59)
3
Aces
0
1
Double Faults
2
75%
(
30 of
40)
1st Serve Won
59%
(
17 of
29)
61%
(
11 of
18)
2nd Serve Won
47%
(
14 of
30)
67%
(
4 of
6)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
1)
29%
(
17 of
58)
Rtn Points Won
47%
(
28 of
59)
69
Total Points Won
48
|
6-0 7-5 | H2H | ||
| SF |
Stats
Tiantsoa Rakotomanga Rajaonah
Player
Andrea Lazaro Garcia
66%
(
64 of
97)
1st Serve %
60%
(
56 of
94)
0
Aces
3
5
Double Faults
3
61%
(
39 of
64)
1st Serve Won
63%
(
35 of
56)
42%
(
14 of
33)
2nd Serve Won
39%
(
15 of
38)
60%
(
6 of
10)
Break Points Won
60%
(
6 of
10)
45%
(
44 of
97)
Rtn Points Won
47%
(
44 of
94)
97
Total Points Won
94
|
3-6 7-6(5) 6-2 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Tiantsoa Rakotomanga Rajaonah
Player
Lucrezia Stefanini
63%
(
60 of
96)
1st Serve %
74%
(
64 of
87)
1
Aces
0
6
Double Faults
2
65%
(
39 of
60)
1st Serve Won
56%
(
36 of
64)
28%
(
10 of
36)
2nd Serve Won
57%
(
13 of
23)
67%
(
6 of
9)
Break Points Won
32%
(
6 of
19)
49%
(
47 of
96)
Rtn Points Won
44%
(
38 of
87)
87
Total Points Won
96
|
6-4 2-6 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Tiantsoa Rakotomanga Rajaonah
Player
Astrid Lew Yan Foon
61%
(
27 of
44)
1st Serve %
40%
(
12 of
30)
3
Aces
1
0
Double Faults
3
74%
(
20 of
27)
1st Serve Won
33%
(
4 of
12)
65%
(
11 of
17)
2nd Serve Won
39%
(
7 of
18)
80%
(
4 of
5)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
1)
30%
(
13 of
44)
Rtn Points Won
63%
(
19 of
30)
50
Total Points Won
24
|
6-1 6-1 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Tiantsoa Rakotomanga Rajaonah
Player
Viktoria Hruncakova
56%
(
25 of
45)
1st Serve %
60%
(
27 of
45)
2
Aces
4
2
Double Faults
4
72%
(
18 of
25)
1st Serve Won
74%
(
20 of
27)
65%
(
13 of
20)
2nd Serve Won
33%
(
6 of
18)
60%
(
3 of
5)
Break Points Won
33%
(
1 of
3)
31%
(
14 of
45)
Rtn Points Won
42%
(
19 of
45)
50
Total Points Won
40
|
6-0 4-6 6-4 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Tiantsoa Rakotomanga Rajaonah
Player
Deborah Chiesa
66%
(
74 of
112)
1st Serve %
52%
(
69 of
132)
5
Aces
6
3
Double Faults
5
68%
(
50 of
74)
1st Serve Won
67%
(
46 of
69)
53%
(
20 of
38)
2nd Serve Won
41%
(
26 of
63)
26%
(
6 of
23)
Break Points Won
30%
(
3 of
10)
38%
(
42 of
112)
Rtn Points Won
45%
(
60 of
132)
130
Total Points Won
114
|
6-7(5) 7-5 6-2 | H2H | ||
| SF |
Stats
Manon Leonard
Player
Tiantsoa Rakotomanga Rajaonah
57%
(
39 of
68)
1st Serve %
71%
(
49 of
69)
1
Aces
5
1
Double Faults
0
72%
(
28 of
39)
1st Serve Won
53%
(
26 of
49)
45%
(
13 of
29)
2nd Serve Won
45%
(
9 of
20)
56%
(
5 of
9)
Break Points Won
100%
(
4 of
4)
40%
(
27 of
68)
Rtn Points Won
49%
(
34 of
69)
75
Total Points Won
62
|
7-6(2) 6-4 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Tiantsoa Rakotomanga Rajaonah
Player
Guiomar Zuleta De Reales
77%
(
43 of
56)
1st Serve %
65%
(
47 of
72)
1
Aces
2
1
Double Faults
0
58%
(
25 of
43)
1st Serve Won
45%
(
21 of
47)
46%
(
6 of
13)
2nd Serve Won
48%
(
12 of
25)
40%
(
6 of
15)
Break Points Won
100%
(
4 of
4)
45%
(
25 of
56)
Rtn Points Won
54%
(
39 of
72)
70
Total Points Won
58
|
6-4 6-4 | H2H | ||
view more
Stats Breakdown Vs All H2H Opponents
| Stats | ||
|---|---|---|
| 50% (59/59) | Win/Loss | 63% (94/55) |
| 50% (141/141) | Sets Win/Loss | 60% (207/139) |
| 51% (1377/1349) | Games Win/Loss | 54% (1755/1469) |
| 43% (3/4) | Hard Win/Loss | 45% (5/6) |
| 45% (33/40) | Clay Win/Loss | 67% (75/37) |
| 61% (23/15) | Indoor Hard W/L | 54% (14/12) |
| 0% (0/0) | Grass Win/Loss | 0% (0/0) |
| 0.14 | Aces Per Game | 0.09 |
| 183 | Aces Total | 145 |
| 0.29 | Double Faults Per Game | 0.38 |
| 383 | Total Double Faults | 601 |
| 1:39:32 | Average Match Time | 1:33:9 |
| 232.52 | Average Opponent Rank | 432.12 |
| 62% (4577/7404) | 1st Serve % | 65% (6062/9336) |
| 60% (2738/4577) | 1st Serve Win % | 60% (3663/6062) |
| 44% (1241/2827) | 2nd Serve Win % | 44% (1432/3274) |
| 47% (442/938) | Break Points Won % (Total) | 49% (653/1343) |
| 46% (3433/7433) | Return Points Win % | 48% (4596/9531) |
| 0% (0/0) | Slam W/L | 0% (0/1) |
| 0% (0/1) | Masters W/L | 0% (0/0) |
| 0% (0/0) | Cups W/L | 0% (0/0) |
| 0% (0/1) | Main Tour W/L | 0% (0/0) |
| 0% (0/0) | Tour Finals W/L | 0% (0/0) |
| 47% (40/45) | Challenger W/L | 54% (50/42) |
| 61% (19/12) | Futures W/L | 79% (44/12) |
| 50% (58/117) | Best of 3 Sets Win % | 63% (93/148) |
| 0% (0/0) | Best of 5 Sets Win % | 0% (0/0) |
| 42% (10/24) | Tiebreaks Win % (Total) | 53% (19/36) |
| 49% (23/47) | Deciding Set Win % | 59% (29/49) |
| 78% (60/47) | 1st Set Won, Won Match | 92% (85/78) |
| 22% (60/13) | 1st Set Won, Lost Match | 8% (85/7) |
| 19% (58/11) | 1st Set Lost, Won Match | 25% (64/16) |
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]
