Predictions
Matches
Calendar
H2H
Rankings
Picks Blog
Go Soeda vs Cem Ilkel 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 Soeda vs Ilkel analysis and find out who is favored!
Go Soeda vs Cem Ilkel Important H2H Prediction Stats:
- Second serve performance recent form: In recent form (last 6 months), Soeda has won 0% of points on his second serve, while Ilkel has won 47.73%. There is a high correlation between this stat and match prediction accuracy.
- Return game stats recent form: Return stats show Soeda, in recent form, has won 0% of his opponent's second serve points, while Ilkel has won 51.9%. The same stats for first serve returns are 0% and 25% respectively and this has a high correlation to pick who is favored in this H2H matchup.
- Under pressure analysis: Soeda has saved 0% of breakpoints in recent form, whereas Ilkel has saved 54.32% which is a useful statistic for in-game betting predictions.
- Performance overview: Over the last year Soeda has won 0% of matches played (W/L 0/ 0), with Ilkel winning 39.58% (W/L 19/ 29) that gives us an overall head-to head prediction overview.
- Best surface: Soeda has their best career surface win % on Hard, winning 61% (W/L 476/ 305), and worse career win % on Clay, winning 38% (W/L 19/ 31). Ilkel has their best career surface win % on Hard, winning 61% (W/L 254/ 162), and worse career win % on Grass, winning 10% (W/L 1/ 9).
- Direct H2H matches: They have played 2 times before with Soeda winning 2 times. They have played 4 sets in total, with Soeda winning 4 and Ilkel winning 0. The last match between Soeda and Ilkel was at the Nottingham Challenger, 11-06-2019, First, Grass with Go Soeda getting the victory .
- Head to head match duration: In past head to head matches, the average match time between these players has been 1:0:34.
- Deciding set H2H prediction: Soeda and Ilkel have played a deciding set 0 times, with Soeda winning 0 times and Ilkel 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 Soeda winning 0, and Ilkel 0.
- Opponent quality stats: Over the last 12 months, Soeda has played against opponents with an average rank of while Ilkel has played against players with an average rank of 237.9.
- Deciding set performance vs all players: If you are interested in live predictions and betting, if this match goes into a deciding set, Soeda has won 0% of deciding sets over the last 12 months, while Ilkel has won 50% in all matches played on tour.
- Break point conversion: In recent form, Soeda has converted 0% of breakpoint opportunities, and Ilkel has converted 45.05% of their chances to break their opponents serve. A telling stat for in-game live betting tips when either player has a breakpoint opportunity.
Head-to-head: Soeda 2 - 0 Ilkel
683
Rank
47
High
39
Age
R
Plays
2
Total0
1
Hard0
0
Clay0
0
Indoor0
1
Grass0
415
Rank
144
High
28
Age
R
Plays
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Form
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
58% (658-471)
Career Total W/L
56% (400-309)
0% (0-0)
YTD W/L
44% (8-10)
$791,590
Career Prize Money
$225,530
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 | Go Soeda | Cem Ilkel |
|---|---|---|
| All H2H Matches | 2 | 0 |
| Sets Won | 4 | 0 |
| Games Won | 24 | 5 |
| Aces (Total) | 13 | 7 |
| DFs (Total) | 1 | 5 |
| Avg Match Time | 1:0:34 | 1:0:34 |
| 1st Serve % | 61% (55/90) | 58% (56/97) |
| 1st Serve Win% | 80% (44/55) | 50% (28/56) |
| 2nd Serve Win% | 60% (21/35) | 34% (14/41) |
| BPs Won% (Total) | 59% (10/17) | 0% (0/5) |
| Return Points W% | 57% (55/97) | 28% (25/90) |
| Best of 3 Sets W% | 100% (2/2) | 0% (0/2) |
| 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% (2/2) | 0% (0/0) |
| 1st set W, L | 0% (2/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| 1st set L, W | 0% (0/0) | 0% (2/0) |
| Winning Player | Losing Player | Score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6-2 6-0 |
Stats 
Go Soeda
Player
Cem Ilkel
60%
(
27 of
45)
1st Serve %
72%
(
28 of
39)
5
Aces
1
0
Double Faults
1
78%
(
21 of
27)
1st Serve Won
43%
(
12 of
28)
61%
(
11 of
18)
2nd Serve Won
27%
(
3 of
11)
83%
(
5 of
6)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
2)
29%
(
13 of
45)
Rtn Points Won
62%
(
24 of
39)
56
Total Points Won
28
|
||||
| 6-2 6-1 |
Stats
Go Soeda
Player
Cem Ilkel
62%
(
28 of
45)
1st Serve %
48%
(
28 of
58)
8
Aces
6
1
Double Faults
4
82%
(
23 of
28)
1st Serve Won
57%
(
16 of
28)
59%
(
10 of
17)
2nd Serve Won
37%
(
11 of
30)
45%
(
5 of
11)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
3)
27%
(
12 of
45)
Rtn Points Won
53%
(
31 of
58)
64
Total Points Won
39
|
||||
Stats Breakdown Vs All H2H Opponents
| stats | Go Soeda | Cem Ilkel |
|---|---|---|
| YTD W/L | 0% (0/0) | 44% (8/10) |
| Sets Win/Loss | 0% (0/0) | 43% (17/23) |
| Games Win/Loss | 0% (0/0) | 46% (165/195) |
| Hard Win/Loss | 0% (0/0) | 43% (3/4) |
| Clay Win/Loss | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Indoor Hard W/L | 0% (0/0) | 45% (5/6) |
| Grass Win/Loss | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Aces pg | 0 | 0.54 |
| Aces Total | 0 | 94 |
| DFs per game | 0 | 0.24 |
| DFs Total | 0 | 42 |
| Avg Match Time | 1st Match | 1:28:14 |
| Avg Opp Rank | 0 | 162.39 |
| 1st Serve % | 0% (0/0) | 57% (616/1073) |
| 1st Serve W% | 0% (0/0) | 72% (442/616) |
| 2nd Serve W% | 0% (0/0) | 46% (210/457) |
| BPs Won% Total | 0% (0/0) | 43% (32/74) |
| Return Pts W% | 0% (0/0) | 36% (378/1044) |
| Slam W/L | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| 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) | 0% (0/0) |
| Challenger W/L | 0% (0/0) | 50% (7/7) |
| Futures W/L | 0% (0/0) | 33% (1/2) |
| Best of 3 Sets W% | 0% (0/0) | 41% (7/17) |
| Best of 5 Sets W% | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| TBs Win% (Total) | 0% (0/0) | 80% (4/5) |
| Deciding Set W% | 0% (0/0) | 60% (3/5) |
| 1st set W, W | 0% (0/0) | 75% (8/6) |
| 1st set W, L | 0% (0/0) | 25% (8/2) |
| 1st set L, W | 0% (0/0) | 20% (10/2) |
Go Soeda Recent Matches Played
Before:
| opponent | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 |
Stats
Sho Shimabukuro
Player
Go Soeda
50%
(
28 of
56)
1st Serve %
62%
(
29 of
47)
3
Aces
2
4
Double Faults
2
82%
(
23 of
28)
1st Serve Won
62%
(
18 of
29)
57%
(
16 of
28)
2nd Serve Won
44%
(
8 of
18)
100%
(
3 of
3)
Break Points Won
33%
(
1 of
3)
30%
(
17 of
56)
Rtn Points Won
45%
(
21 of
47)
60
Total Points Won
43
|
6-3 6-4 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Maximilian Neuchrist
Player
Go Soeda
60%
(
35 of
58)
1st Serve %
50%
(
23 of
46)
0
Aces
1
0
Double Faults
1
66%
(
23 of
35)
1st Serve Won
48%
(
11 of
23)
57%
(
13 of
23)
2nd Serve Won
35%
(
8 of
23)
45%
(
5 of
11)
Break Points Won
17%
(
1 of
6)
38%
(
22 of
58)
Rtn Points Won
59%
(
27 of
46)
63
Total Points Won
41
|
6-4 6-0 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Clement Tabur
Player
Go Soeda
58%
(
38 of
65)
1st Serve %
54%
(
26 of
48)
2
Aces
3
2
Double Faults
3
74%
(
28 of
38)
1st Serve Won
62%
(
16 of
26)
48%
(
13 of
27)
2nd Serve Won
50%
(
11 of
22)
80%
(
4 of
5)
Break Points Won
20%
(
1 of
5)
37%
(
24 of
65)
Rtn Points Won
44%
(
21 of
48)
62
Total Points Won
51
|
6-2 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Mats Rosenkranz
Player
Go Soeda
65%
(
41 of
63)
1st Serve %
58%
(
43 of
74)
14
Aces
2
3
Double Faults
4
80%
(
33 of
41)
1st Serve Won
65%
(
28 of
43)
59%
(
13 of
22)
2nd Serve Won
52%
(
16 of
31)
38%
(
3 of
8)
Break Points Won
20%
(
1 of
5)
27%
(
17 of
63)
Rtn Points Won
41%
(
30 of
74)
76
Total Points Won
61
|
6-2 7-6(4) | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Kacper Zuk
Player
Go Soeda
67%
(
34 of
51)
1st Serve %
68%
(
40 of
59)
9
Aces
3
1
Double Faults
4
85%
(
29 of
34)
1st Serve Won
63%
(
25 of
40)
47%
(
8 of
17)
2nd Serve Won
37%
(
7 of
19)
33%
(
3 of
9)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
27%
(
14 of
51)
Rtn Points Won
46%
(
27 of
59)
64
Total Points Won
46
|
6-3 6-2 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Mikhail Kukushkin
Player
Go Soeda
57%
(
21 of
37)
1st Serve %
62%
(
28 of
45)
7
Aces
0
0
Double Faults
0
86%
(
18 of
21)
1st Serve Won
54%
(
15 of
28)
69%
(
11 of
16)
2nd Serve Won
24%
(
4 of
17)
63%
(
5 of
8)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
1)
22%
(
8 of
37)
Rtn Points Won
58%
(
26 of
45)
55
Total Points Won
27
|
6-2 6-0 | H2H | ||
| SF |
Stats
Prajnesh Gunneswaran
Player
Go Soeda
76%
(
90 of
119)
1st Serve %
68%
(
80 of
117)
9
Aces
1
1
Double Faults
3
71%
(
64 of
90)
1st Serve Won
65%
(
52 of
80)
45%
(
13 of
29)
2nd Serve Won
59%
(
22 of
37)
29%
(
2 of
7)
Break Points Won
13%
(
1 of
8)
35%
(
42 of
119)
Rtn Points Won
37%
(
43 of
117)
120
Total Points Won
116
|
6-7(7) 7-6(4) 6-4 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Go Soeda
Player
Ulises Blanch
66%
(
77 of
116)
1st Serve %
62%
(
71 of
115)
6
Aces
13
5
Double Faults
6
64%
(
49 of
77)
1st Serve Won
66%
(
47 of
71)
44%
(
17 of
39)
2nd Serve Won
30%
(
13 of
44)
64%
(
7 of
11)
Break Points Won
54%
(
7 of
13)
43%
(
50 of
116)
Rtn Points Won
48%
(
55 of
115)
121
Total Points Won
110
|
4-6 7-6(5) 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Go Soeda
Player
Juan Pablo Ficovich
65%
(
45 of
69)
1st Serve %
53%
(
43 of
81)
3
Aces
13
0
Double Faults
6
78%
(
35 of
45)
1st Serve Won
63%
(
27 of
43)
38%
(
9 of
24)
2nd Serve Won
42%
(
16 of
38)
56%
(
5 of
9)
Break Points Won
43%
(
3 of
7)
36%
(
25 of
69)
Rtn Points Won
47%
(
38 of
81)
82
Total Points Won
68
|
2-6 6-2 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Go Soeda
Player
Viktor Durasovic
54%
(
49 of
91)
1st Serve %
58%
(
42 of
73)
3
Aces
8
5
Double Faults
3
82%
(
40 of
49)
1st Serve Won
83%
(
35 of
42)
52%
(
22 of
42)
2nd Serve Won
48%
(
15 of
31)
80%
(
4 of
5)
Break Points Won
20%
(
1 of
5)
32%
(
29 of
91)
Rtn Points Won
32%
(
23 of
73)
85
Total Points Won
79
|
6-2 6-7(0) 6-3 | H2H | ||
view more
Cem Ilkel Recent Matches Played
Before:
| opponent | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 |
Stats
Matthew Hulme
Player
Cem Ilkel
71%
(
50 of
70)
1st Serve %
66%
(
49 of
74)
11
Aces
5
1
Double Faults
2
74%
(
37 of
50)
1st Serve Won
69%
(
34 of
49)
50%
(
10 of
20)
2nd Serve Won
44%
(
11 of
25)
75%
(
3 of
4)
Break Points Won
29%
(
2 of
7)
33%
(
23 of
70)
Rtn Points Won
39%
(
29 of
74)
76
Total Points Won
68
|
1-6 6-3 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Petr Nesterov
Player
Cem Ilkel
71%
(
36 of
51)
1st Serve %
51%
(
23 of
45)
9
Aces
4
0
Double Faults
3
81%
(
29 of
36)
1st Serve Won
74%
(
17 of
23)
67%
(
10 of
15)
2nd Serve Won
45%
(
10 of
22)
60%
(
3 of
5)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
2)
24%
(
12 of
51)
Rtn Points Won
40%
(
18 of
45)
57
Total Points Won
39
|
6-3 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Cem Ilkel
Player
Yousef Khamis
47%
(
34 of
72)
1st Serve %
61%
(
39 of
64)
9
Aces
9
8
Double Faults
5
82%
(
28 of
34)
1st Serve Won
69%
(
27 of
39)
50%
(
19 of
38)
2nd Serve Won
48%
(
12 of
25)
100%
(
3 of
3)
Break Points Won
40%
(
2 of
5)
35%
(
25 of
72)
Rtn Points Won
39%
(
25 of
64)
72
Total Points Won
64
|
6-4 7-6(4) | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Michael Agwi
Player
Cem Ilkel
64%
(
28 of
44)
1st Serve %
48%
(
19 of
40)
5
Aces
1
2
Double Faults
1
75%
(
21 of
28)
1st Serve Won
47%
(
9 of
19)
63%
(
10 of
16)
2nd Serve Won
33%
(
7 of
21)
71%
(
5 of
7)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
1)
30%
(
13 of
44)
Rtn Points Won
60%
(
24 of
40)
55
Total Points Won
29
|
6-0 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Otto Virtanen
Player
Cem Ilkel
62%
(
21 of
34)
1st Serve %
60%
(
28 of
47)
11
Aces
1
6
Double Faults
3
100%
(
21 of
21)
1st Serve Won
54%
(
15 of
28)
38%
(
5 of
13)
2nd Serve Won
21%
(
4 of
19)
60%
(
6 of
10)
Break Points Won
100%
(
1 of
1)
24%
(
8 of
34)
Rtn Points Won
60%
(
28 of
47)
54
Total Points Won
27
|
6-2 6-1 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Cem Ilkel
Player
Johan Nikles
51%
(
25 of
49)
1st Serve %
54%
(
30 of
56)
2
Aces
0
3
Double Faults
5
68%
(
17 of
25)
1st Serve Won
53%
(
16 of
30)
54%
(
13 of
24)
2nd Serve Won
23%
(
6 of
26)
46%
(
6 of
13)
Break Points Won
50%
(
2 of
4)
39%
(
19 of
49)
Rtn Points Won
61%
(
34 of
56)
64
Total Points Won
41
|
6-0 6-3 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Cem Ilkel
Player
Illya Marchenko
61%
(
46 of
76)
1st Serve %
59%
(
53 of
90)
10
Aces
7
1
Double Faults
3
76%
(
35 of
46)
1st Serve Won
74%
(
39 of
53)
60%
(
18 of
30)
2nd Serve Won
46%
(
17 of
37)
33%
(
1 of
3)
Break Points Won
33%
(
1 of
3)
30%
(
23 of
76)
Rtn Points Won
38%
(
34 of
90)
87
Total Points Won
79
|
7-6(6) 7-6(2) | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Cem Ilkel
Player
Kyle Edmund
55%
(
56 of
102)
1st Serve %
55%
(
54 of
98)
12
Aces
3
6
Double Faults
5
80%
(
45 of
56)
1st Serve Won
70%
(
38 of
54)
41%
(
19 of
46)
2nd Serve Won
48%
(
21 of
44)
43%
(
3 of
7)
Break Points Won
25%
(
3 of
12)
37%
(
38 of
102)
Rtn Points Won
40%
(
39 of
98)
103
Total Points Won
97
|
3-6 7-6(5) 6-2 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Arthur Bouquier
Player
Cem Ilkel
71%
(
40 of
56)
1st Serve %
59%
(
42 of
71)
13
Aces
4
3
Double Faults
2
88%
(
35 of
40)
1st Serve Won
67%
(
28 of
42)
50%
(
8 of
16)
2nd Serve Won
55%
(
16 of
29)
33%
(
2 of
6)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
2)
23%
(
13 of
56)
Rtn Points Won
38%
(
27 of
71)
70
Total Points Won
57
|
6-4 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Gastao Elias
Player
Cem Ilkel
60%
(
62 of
103)
1st Serve %
60%
(
52 of
87)
6
Aces
8
1
Double Faults
2
66%
(
41 of
62)
1st Serve Won
73%
(
38 of
52)
49%
(
20 of
41)
2nd Serve Won
37%
(
13 of
35)
45%
(
5 of
11)
Break Points Won
57%
(
4 of
7)
41%
(
42 of
103)
Rtn Points Won
41%
(
36 of
87)
97
Total Points Won
93
|
3-6 6-1 7-6(6) | H2H | ||
view more
Soeda Vs Ilkel Prediction H2H Images To Share
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 support@matchstat.com
