Harmony Tan vs Anna Sinclair Rogers Head-to-Head Stats, Results & Performance Comparison
By Wojtek Kolan
Form
L W W W L W L W W L
Form
W W L L W W L W W LHead-to-head: Tan 1 - 0 Rogers
They have played 2 sets in total, with Tan winning 2 and Rogers winning 0. The last match between Tan and Rogers was at the W35 Manchester, 18-02-2025, First, I.hard with Harmony Tan getting the victory 6-0 6-3.
W35 Manchester(18-02-2025)
6
0
6
3
Today’s Tennis Tips:
Draper VS Alcaraz PREDICTION Hard
BNP Paribas Open - Indian Wells atp
15 Mar 2025 / Semifinals
ODDS
PREDICTION
EDGE
Sabalenka VS Andreeva PREDICTION Hard
BNP Paribas Open - Indian Wells wta
15 Mar 2025 / Final
ODDS
PREDICTION
EDGE
| Winning Player | Losing Player | Score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6-0 6-3 |
Stats 
Harmony Tan
Player
Anna Sinclair Rogers
48%
(
12 of
25)
1st Serve %
78%
(
21 of
27)
0
Aces
2
1
Double Faults
0
83%
(
10 of
12)
1st Serve Won
43%
(
9 of
21)
54%
(
7 of
13)
2nd Serve Won
33%
(
2 of
6)
60%
(
3 of
5)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
32%
(
8 of
25)
Rtn Points Won
59%
(
16 of
27)
33
Total Points Won
19
|
||||
Stats
1
H2H Matches
0
2
Sets Won
0
12
Games Won
3
0
Aces (Total)
2
1
Total Double Faults
0
0:45:42
Average Match Time
0:45:42
48% (12/25)
1st Serve %
78% (21/27)
83% (10/12)
1st Serve Win %
43% (9/21)
54% (7/13)
2nd Serve Win %
33% (2/6)
60% (3/5)
Break Points Won % (Total)
0% (0/0)
59% (16/27)
Return Points Win %
32% (8/25)
100% (1/1)
Best of 3 Sets Win %
0% (0/1)
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)
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.
Harmony Tan vs Anna Sinclair Rogers Important H2H Prediction Stats:
Head-to-head: Harmony Tan 1 - 0 Anna Sinclair Rogers
Predictions based on statistical insights:
- Recent performance on second serves: Tan and Rogers have shown remarkable abilities in their recent form. Tan has triumphed in 45.8% of points on their second serve, while Rogers has achieved an even more impressive success rate of 47.97%. This particular statistic holds a notable correlation with the accuracy of match predictions.
- Return game statistics: When it comes to returning, Tan seems to have the upper hand in recent form. They have conquered 57.58% of their opponent's second-serve points, surpassing Rogers who stands at 56.55%. Furthermore, in terms of first-serve returns, Tan holds a slight edge with a success rate of 40.41% compared to Rogers' 39.06%. These vital statistics greatly assist in determining the favored player in their head-to-head matchup.
- Performance under pressure: Saving breakpoints is integral to successful in-game betting predictions. In this regard, Tan has proven their resilience by saving 53.46% of breakpoints in recent events. However, Rogers has demonstrated an even higher level of composure, saving 54.8% of breakpoints. This noteworthy statistic serves as a valuable asset for prediction purposes.
- Comprehensive overview of performance: Over the past year, Tan has exhibited their prowess by winning 59.65% of their matches (34 wins and 23 losses). On the other hand, Rogers has achieved an even more impressive success rate of 65.85% (54 wins and 28 losses). These overall statistics provide a solid foundation for predicting their head-to-head encounters.
- Specialization in surface type: Each player boasts proficiency on distinctive surfaces. Tan's superior career win percentage of 68% on grass (17 wins and 8 losses) positions them favorably on this specific playing field. Meanwhile, they struggle relatively more on clay courts with a win percentage of 51% (128 wins and 125 losses). Rogers, on the other hand, thrives on indoor hard surfaces, earning a remarkable 68% win rate (26 wins and 12 losses). However, their performance drops significantly on clay, with a win percentage of only 42% (22 wins and 31 losses).
- Comparative player level: It is imperative to consider the event level at which players have competed when evaluating their stats and predicting the favorite. Over the past year, Tan has primarily participated in the Challenger/ITF tournaments with a prize pool exceeding $10,000. They have displayed an impressive win rate of 63.27% (31 wins and 18 losses) within this competitive sphere. Similarly, Rogers has thrived in the same tournaments, securing victory in 65.85% of matches (54 wins and 28 losses). Hence, the relative success of each player is contingent upon the level of the events in which they have engaged.
- Quality of opponents: Analyzing the average rank of opponents faced by each player in the last 12 months provides valuable insights. Tan has competed against opponents with an average rank of 373.56, reflecting their ability to face formidable challenges. Contrastingly, Rogers has encountered players with an average rank of 407.22, underscoring their proficiency in confronting opponents with varying skill levels.
- Deciding set performance: Should this match extend to a deciding set, the players' track records in such situations become paramount. Tan has emerged victorious in an impressive 67% of deciding sets within the past year. Meanwhile, Rogers boasts an even higher success rate of 69% in all matches played on the tour. These figures greatly aid in live predictions and betting considerations.
- Relevance of current event stats: While past player performance contributes significantly to tennis match predictions, it is equally important to consider current event statistics. Monitoring the performance of players during the ongoing event allows for a more accurate assessment of their current form. Therefore, it is highly recommended to refer to the section below* to gauge the indications of in-form players. Additionally, certain players may display superior performances in specific events, and this attribute should be factored in when predicting the match outcome.
- Break point conversion: The ability to convert breakpoints significantly influences in-game betting decisions. Recent data indicates that Tan has capitalized on 49.47% of breakpoint opportunities, emphasizing their proficiency in crucial moments. Similarly, Rogers has displayed a commendable conversion rate of 45.79% when attempting to break their opponents' serve. These statistics prove to be highly informative for live betting tips.
- If you are keen on exploring models that accurately predict tennis matches, this article serves as an excellent starting point. However, it should be noted that its complexity makes it primarily suitable for avid statistics enthusiasts.
*Please note that certain HTML tags have been removed for the purpose of this exercise.
Harmony Tan Recent Matches Played
Before:
| OPPONENT | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QF |
Stats
Andrea Lazaro Garcia
Player
Harmony Tan
57%
(
24 of
42)
1st Serve %
77%
(
30 of
39)
1
Aces
0
3
Double Faults
2
79%
(
19 of
24)
1st Serve Won
53%
(
16 of
30)
67%
(
12 of
18)
2nd Serve Won
22%
(
2 of
9)
57%
(
4 of
7)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
2)
26%
(
11 of
42)
Rtn Points Won
54%
(
21 of
39)
52
Total Points Won
29
|
6-2 6-1 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Harmony Tan
Player
Raluca Georgiana Serban
47%
(
27 of
57)
1st Serve %
68%
(
32 of
47)
0
Aces
0
1
Double Faults
4
78%
(
21 of
27)
1st Serve Won
50%
(
16 of
32)
57%
(
17 of
30)
2nd Serve Won
47%
(
7 of
15)
67%
(
4 of
6)
Break Points Won
33%
(
1 of
3)
33%
(
19 of
57)
Rtn Points Won
51%
(
24 of
47)
62
Total Points Won
42
|
6-1 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Harmony Tan
Player
Guiomar Zuleta De Reales
50%
(
32 of
64)
1st Serve %
56%
(
27 of
48)
1
Aces
0
3
Double Faults
4
66%
(
21 of
32)
1st Serve Won
41%
(
11 of
27)
53%
(
17 of
32)
2nd Serve Won
43%
(
9 of
21)
83%
(
5 of
6)
Break Points Won
67%
(
2 of
3)
41%
(
26 of
64)
Rtn Points Won
58%
(
28 of
48)
66
Total Points Won
46
|
6-4 6-1 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Julie Belgraver
Player
Harmony Tan
63%
(
78 of
123)
1st Serve %
65%
(
64 of
98)
5
Aces
4
2
Double Faults
1
68%
(
53 of
78)
1st Serve Won
69%
(
44 of
64)
60%
(
27 of
45)
2nd Serve Won
47%
(
16 of
34)
100%
(
5 of
5)
Break Points Won
25%
(
3 of
12)
35%
(
43 of
123)
Rtn Points Won
39%
(
38 of
98)
118
Total Points Won
103
|
7-6(3) 6-7(4) 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Harmony Tan
Player
Anna Sinclair Rogers
48%
(
12 of
25)
1st Serve %
78%
(
21 of
27)
0
Aces
2
1
Double Faults
0
83%
(
10 of
12)
1st Serve Won
43%
(
9 of
21)
54%
(
7 of
13)
2nd Serve Won
33%
(
2 of
6)
60%
(
3 of
5)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
32%
(
8 of
25)
Rtn Points Won
59%
(
16 of
27)
33
Total Points Won
19
|
6-0 6-3 | H2H | ||
| SF |
Stats
Elsa Jacquemot
Player
Harmony Tan
81%
(
42 of
52)
1st Serve %
52%
(
32 of
62)
9
Aces
1
0
Double Faults
1
90%
(
38 of
42)
1st Serve Won
63%
(
20 of
32)
30%
(
3 of
10)
2nd Serve Won
57%
(
17 of
30)
67%
(
2 of
3)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
3)
21%
(
11 of
52)
Rtn Points Won
40%
(
25 of
62)
66
Total Points Won
48
|
6-4 6-4 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Harmony Tan
Player
Marina Bassols Ribera
49%
(
54 of
110)
1st Serve %
83%
(
85 of
103)
12
Aces
1
2
Double Faults
1
69%
(
37 of
54)
1st Serve Won
53%
(
45 of
85)
50%
(
28 of
56)
2nd Serve Won
61%
(
11 of
18)
43%
(
6 of
14)
Break Points Won
27%
(
4 of
15)
41%
(
45 of
110)
Rtn Points Won
46%
(
47 of
103)
112
Total Points Won
101
|
6-3 6-7(2) 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Harmony Tan
Player
Astrid Lew Yan Foon
48%
(
32 of
67)
1st Serve %
50%
(
36 of
72)
1
Aces
5
1
Double Faults
1
88%
(
28 of
32)
1st Serve Won
72%
(
26 of
36)
54%
(
19 of
35)
2nd Serve Won
44%
(
16 of
36)
33%
(
3 of
9)
Break Points Won
20%
(
1 of
5)
30%
(
20 of
67)
Rtn Points Won
42%
(
30 of
72)
77
Total Points Won
62
|
7-6(4) 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Harmony Tan
Player
Barbora Palicova
44%
(
26 of
59)
1st Serve %
67%
(
35 of
52)
8
Aces
1
1
Double Faults
6
85%
(
22 of
26)
1st Serve Won
49%
(
17 of
35)
42%
(
14 of
33)
2nd Serve Won
35%
(
6 of
17)
63%
(
5 of
8)
Break Points Won
50%
(
1 of
2)
39%
(
23 of
59)
Rtn Points Won
56%
(
29 of
52)
65
Total Points Won
46
|
6-3 6-1 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Anouck Vrancken Peeters
Player
Harmony Tan
67%
(
64 of
95)
1st Serve %
58%
(
42 of
73)
0
Aces
4
3
Double Faults
2
58%
(
37 of
64)
1st Serve Won
69%
(
29 of
42)
61%
(
19 of
31)
2nd Serve Won
42%
(
13 of
31)
100%
(
4 of
4)
Break Points Won
25%
(
3 of
12)
41%
(
39 of
95)
Rtn Points Won
42%
(
31 of
73)
87
Total Points Won
81
|
1-6 6-3 6-3 | H2H | ||
view more
Anna Sinclair Rogers Recent Matches Played
Before:
| OPPONENT | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 |
Stats
Valentina Ryser
Player
Anna Sinclair Rogers
53%
(
38 of
72)
1st Serve %
70%
(
61 of
87)
2
Aces
4
4
Double Faults
7
68%
(
26 of
38)
1st Serve Won
61%
(
37 of
61)
56%
(
19 of
34)
2nd Serve Won
42%
(
11 of
26)
50%
(
6 of
12)
Break Points Won
50%
(
3 of
6)
38%
(
27 of
72)
Rtn Points Won
45%
(
39 of
87)
84
Total Points Won
75
|
4-6 6-3 6-2 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Anna Sinclair Rogers
Player
Alevtina Ibragimova
76%
(
31 of
41)
1st Serve %
67%
(
36 of
54)
1
Aces
0
1
Double Faults
3
71%
(
22 of
31)
1st Serve Won
47%
(
17 of
36)
80%
(
8 of
10)
2nd Serve Won
39%
(
7 of
18)
71%
(
5 of
7)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
1)
27%
(
11 of
41)
Rtn Points Won
56%
(
30 of
54)
60
Total Points Won
35
|
6-0 6-2 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Anna Sinclair Rogers
Player
Victoria Chramcova
79%
(
33 of
42)
1st Serve %
52%
(
26 of
50)
1
Aces
0
2
Double Faults
3
85%
(
28 of
33)
1st Serve Won
42%
(
11 of
26)
44%
(
4 of
9)
2nd Serve Won
50%
(
12 of
24)
50%
(
4 of
8)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
24%
(
10 of
42)
Rtn Points Won
54%
(
27 of
50)
59
Total Points Won
33
|
6-1 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Leyre Romero Gormaz
Player
Anna Sinclair Rogers
51%
(
41 of
80)
1st Serve %
67%
(
49 of
73)
4
Aces
0
5
Double Faults
3
66%
(
27 of
41)
1st Serve Won
57%
(
28 of
49)
51%
(
20 of
39)
2nd Serve Won
42%
(
10 of
24)
56%
(
5 of
9)
Break Points Won
43%
(
3 of
7)
41%
(
33 of
80)
Rtn Points Won
48%
(
35 of
73)
82
Total Points Won
71
|
7-5 7-5 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Anna Sinclair Rogers
Player
Katarina Kuzmova
68%
(
34 of
50)
1st Serve %
54%
(
30 of
56)
1
Aces
1
3
Double Faults
4
74%
(
25 of
34)
1st Serve Won
57%
(
17 of
30)
50%
(
8 of
16)
2nd Serve Won
35%
(
9 of
26)
56%
(
5 of
9)
Break Points Won
67%
(
2 of
3)
34%
(
17 of
50)
Rtn Points Won
54%
(
30 of
56)
63
Total Points Won
43
|
6-2 6-4 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Anna Sinclair Rogers
Player
Mia Ristic
70%
(
30 of
43)
1st Serve %
65%
(
35 of
54)
1
Aces
0
2
Double Faults
3
80%
(
24 of
30)
1st Serve Won
69%
(
24 of
35)
69%
(
9 of
13)
2nd Serve Won
32%
(
6 of
19)
33%
(
3 of
9)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
23%
(
10 of
43)
Rtn Points Won
44%
(
24 of
54)
57
Total Points Won
40
|
6-3 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Harmony Tan
Player
Anna Sinclair Rogers
48%
(
12 of
25)
1st Serve %
78%
(
21 of
27)
0
Aces
2
1
Double Faults
0
83%
(
10 of
12)
1st Serve Won
43%
(
9 of
21)
54%
(
7 of
13)
2nd Serve Won
33%
(
2 of
6)
60%
(
3 of
5)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
32%
(
8 of
25)
Rtn Points Won
59%
(
16 of
27)
33
Total Points Won
19
|
6-0 6-3 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Manon Leonard
Player
Anna Sinclair Rogers
50%
(
31 of
62)
1st Serve %
64%
(
52 of
81)
0
Aces
1
2
Double Faults
2
71%
(
22 of
31)
1st Serve Won
60%
(
31 of
52)
68%
(
21 of
31)
2nd Serve Won
45%
(
13 of
29)
31%
(
4 of
13)
Break Points Won
17%
(
1 of
6)
31%
(
19 of
62)
Rtn Points Won
46%
(
37 of
81)
80
Total Points Won
63
|
6-3 7-5 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Anna Sinclair Rogers
Player
Stacey Fung
68%
(
32 of
47)
1st Serve %
56%
(
31 of
55)
4
Aces
0
0
Double Faults
3
78%
(
25 of
32)
1st Serve Won
71%
(
22 of
31)
67%
(
10 of
15)
2nd Serve Won
25%
(
6 of
24)
57%
(
4 of
7)
Break Points Won
50%
(
1 of
2)
26%
(
12 of
47)
Rtn Points Won
49%
(
27 of
55)
62
Total Points Won
40
|
6-4 6-1 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Anna Sinclair Rogers
Player
Nahia Berecoechea
80%
(
47 of
59)
1st Serve %
60%
(
35 of
58)
2
Aces
0
0
Double Faults
4
57%
(
27 of
47)
1st Serve Won
54%
(
19 of
35)
67%
(
8 of
12)
2nd Serve Won
43%
(
10 of
23)
50%
(
5 of
10)
Break Points Won
40%
(
2 of
5)
41%
(
24 of
59)
Rtn Points Won
50%
(
29 of
58)
64
Total Points Won
53
|
6-3 6-3 | H2H | ||
view more
Stats Breakdown Vs All H2H Opponents
Stats
55% (355/291)
Win/Loss
58% (119/86)
55% (794/649)
Sets Win/Loss
55% (262/217)
53% (6663/6027)
Games Win/Loss
52% (2317/2144)
55% (106/87)
Hard Win/Loss
61% (59/38)
51% (128/125)
Clay Win/Loss
42% (22/31)
59% (104/71)
Indoor Hard W/L
70% (37/16)
68% (17/8)
Grass Win/Loss
50% (1/1)
0.16
Aces Per Game
0.17
960
Aces Total
376
0.18
Double Faults Per Game
0.25
1113
Total Double Faults
540
1:12:9
Average Match Time
1:31:17
209.13
Average Opponent Rank
426.18
58% (19089/32841)
1st Serve %
66% (8535/12955)
63% (11955/19089)
1st Serve Win %
62% (5267/8535)
46% (6258/13752)
2nd Serve Win %
45% (2000/4420)
50% (2042/4068)
Break Points Won % (Total)
47% (733/1568)
46% (14816/31887)
Return Points Win %
45% (5732/12701)
39% (14/22)
Slam W/L
0% (0/0)
44% (4/5)
Masters W/L
0% (0/0)
0% (0/1)
Cups W/L
0% (0/0)
45% (26/32)
Main Tour W/L
0% (0/0)
0% (0/0)
Tour Finals W/L
0% (0/0)
55% (215/179)
Challenger W/L
56% (103/80)
65% (96/52)
Futures W/L
73% (16/6)
56% (348/620)
Best of 3 Sets Win %
58% (116/201)
10% (1/10)
Best of 5 Sets Win %
100% (3/3)
51% (55/108)
Tiebreaks Win % (Total)
60% (21/35)
48% (77/159)
Deciding Set Win %
64% (43/67)
86% (358/309)
1st Set Won, Won Match
89% (100/89)
13% (358/47)
1st Set Won, Lost Match
11% (100/11)
16% (287/45)
1st Set Lost, Won Match
29% (105/30)
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]
