Predictions
Matches
Calendar
H2H
Rankings
Picks Blog
Jesper De Jong vs Emilio Nava 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 Jong vs Nava analysis and find out who is favored!
Jesper De Jong vs Emilio Nava Important H2H Prediction Stats:
- Second serve performance recent form: In recent form (last 6 months), Jong has won 49.83% of points on his second serve, while Nava has won 50.42%. There is a high correlation between this stat and match prediction accuracy.
- Return game stats recent form: Return stats show Jong, in recent form, has won 49.64% of his opponent's second serve points, while Nava has won 48.19%. The same stats for first serve returns are 32.2% and 29.25% respectively and this has a high correlation to pick who is favored in this H2H matchup.
- Under pressure analysis: Jong has saved 62.75% of breakpoints in recent form, whereas Nava has saved 65.84% which is a useful statistic for in-game betting predictions.
- Performance overview: Over the last year Jong has won 57.63% of matches played (W/L 34/ 25), with Nava winning 62.03% (W/L 49/ 30) that gives us an overall head-to head prediction overview.
- Best surface: Jong has their best career surface win % on Hard, winning 68% (W/L 80/ 38), and worse career win % on Grass, winning 33% (W/L 3/ 6). Nava has their best career surface win % on Clay, winning 66% (W/L 65/ 34), and worse career win % on I.hard, winning 55% (W/L 24/ 20).
- Player level: In the last year, Jong has played most of their matches on the Challengers/ITF tournaments > $10K, winning 59.46% of matches (W/L 22/ 15), where as Nava has played most of their matches on the Challengers/ITF tournaments > $10K, winning 62.26% of matches (W/L 33/ 20). When comparing stats between players to predict the favorite, it is of course all relative to the event level they have been playing at.
- Direct H2H matches: They have played 1 times before with Jong winning 0 times. They have played 2 sets in total, with Jong winning 0 and Nava winning 2. The last match between Jong and Nava was at the Cagliari Challenger, 01-05-2024, First, Clay with Emilio Nava getting the victory 6-1 6-3.
- Head to head match duration: In past head to head matches, the average match time between these players has been 1:13:28.
- Deciding set H2H prediction: Jong and Nava have played a deciding set 0 times, with Jong winning 0 times and Nava 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 Jong winning 0, and Nava 0.
- Opponent quality stats: Over the last 12 months, Jong has played against opponents with an average rank of 334.78 while Nava has played against players with an average rank of 295.92.
- Deciding set performance vs all players: If you are interested in live predictions and betting, if this match goes into a deciding set, Jong has won 42% of deciding sets over the last 12 months, while Nava has won 65% in all matches played on tour.
- Break point conversion: In recent form, Jong has converted 45.99% of breakpoint opportunities, and Nava has converted 40.87% 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: Jong 0 - 1 Nava
162
Rank
135
High
23
Age
R
Plays
0
Total1
0
Hard0
0
Clay1
0
Indoor0
0
Grass0
124
Rank
124
High
22
Age
R
Plays
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
Form
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
62% (221-135)
Career Total W/L
60% (173-117)
57% (17-13)
YTD W/L
58% (19-14)
$320,415
Career Prize Money
$402,385
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 | Jesper De Jong | Emilio Nava |
|---|---|---|
| All H2H Matches | 0 | 1 |
| Sets Won | 0 | 2 |
| Games Won | 4 | 12 |
| Aces (Total) | 1 | 4 |
| DFs (Total) | 4 | 2 |
| Avg Match Time | 1:13:28 | 1:13:28 |
| 1st Serve % | 63% (35/56) | 62% (29/47) |
| 1st Serve Win% | 57% (20/35) | 72% (21/29) |
| 2nd Serve Win% | 33% (7/21) | 83% (15/18) |
| BPs Won% (Total) | 0% (0/5) | 40% (4/10) |
| Return Points W% | 23% (11/47) | 52% (29/56) |
| Best of 3 Sets W% | 0% (0/1) | 100% (1/1) |
| 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 | 0% (0/0) | 100% (1/1) |
| 1st set W, L | 0% (0/0) | 0% (1/0) |
| 1st set L, W | 0% (1/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Winning Player | Losing Player | Score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6-1 6-3 |
Stats 
Emilio Nava
Player
Jesper De Jong
62%
(
29 of
47)
1st Serve %
63%
(
35 of
56)
4
Aces
1
2
Double Faults
4
72%
(
21 of
29)
1st Serve Won
57%
(
20 of
35)
83%
(
15 of
18)
2nd Serve Won
33%
(
7 of
21)
40%
(
4 of
10)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
5)
23%
(
11 of
47)
Rtn Points Won
52%
(
29 of
56)
65
Total Points Won
38
|
||||
Stats Breakdown Vs All H2H Opponents
| stats | Jesper De Jong | Emilio Nava |
|---|---|---|
| YTD W/L | 57% (17/13) | 58% (19/14) |
| Sets Win/Loss | 54% (39/33) | 57% (43/33) |
| Games Win/Loss | 52% (350/319) | 52% (400/373) |
| Hard Win/Loss | 70% (7/3) | 61% (11/7) |
| Clay Win/Loss | 56% (10/8) | 44% (4/5) |
| Indoor Hard W/L | 0% (0/2) | 67% (4/2) |
| Grass Win/Loss | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Aces pg | 0.46 | 0.63 |
| Aces Total | 151 | 240 |
| DFs per game | 0.24 | 0.27 |
| DFs Total | 78 | 103 |
| Avg Match Time | 1:51:2 | 1:46:46 |
| Avg Opp Rank | 331.6 | 296.97 |
| 1st Serve % | 60% (1287/2160) | 62% (1553/2505) |
| 1st Serve W% | 71% (915/1287) | 71% (1103/1553) |
| 2nd Serve W% | 50% (435/873) | 50% (480/952) |
| BPs Won% Total | 46% (86/187) | 41% (85/208) |
| Return Pts W% | 39% (815/2086) | 37% (870/2383) |
| Slam W/L | 80% (4/1) | 67% (2/1) |
| Masters W/L | 50% (1/1) | 43% (3/4) |
| Cups W/L | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Main Tour W/L | 0% (0/2) | 63% (5/3) |
| Tour Finals W/L | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Challenger W/L | 57% (12/9) | 60% (9/6) |
| Futures W/L | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Best of 3 Sets W% | 54% (14/26) | 58% (19/33) |
| Best of 5 Sets W% | 67% (2/3) | 0% (0/0) |
| TBs Win% (Total) | 56% (5/9) | 29% (5/17) |
| Deciding Set W% | 44% (4/9) | 50% (5/10) |
| 1st set W, W | 93% (15/14) | 84% (19/16) |
| 1st set W, L | 7% (15/1) | 16% (19/3) |
| 1st set L, W | 20% (15/3) | 21% (14/3) |
Jesper De Jong Recent Matches Played
Before:
| opponent | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 |
Stats
Valentin Royer
Player
Jesper De Jong
55%
(
56 of
102)
1st Serve %
49%
(
45 of
92)
8
Aces
7
6
Double Faults
3
79%
(
44 of
56)
1st Serve Won
80%
(
36 of
45)
59%
(
27 of
46)
2nd Serve Won
57%
(
27 of
47)
40%
(
2 of
5)
Break Points Won
25%
(
1 of
4)
30%
(
31 of
102)
Rtn Points Won
32%
(
29 of
92)
100
Total Points Won
94
|
6-3 5-7 6-4 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Brandon Nakashima
Player
Jesper De Jong
49%
(
42 of
85)
1st Serve %
60%
(
59 of
98)
6
Aces
5
2
Double Faults
4
69%
(
29 of
42)
1st Serve Won
71%
(
42 of
59)
70%
(
30 of
43)
2nd Serve Won
49%
(
19 of
39)
38%
(
3 of
8)
Break Points Won
67%
(
2 of
3)
31%
(
26 of
85)
Rtn Points Won
38%
(
37 of
98)
96
Total Points Won
87
|
6-4 4-6 6-4 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Jesper De Jong
Player
Jurij Rodionov
54%
(
58 of
107)
1st Serve %
45%
(
40 of
89)
5
Aces
3
3
Double Faults
2
60%
(
35 of
58)
1st Serve Won
63%
(
25 of
40)
51%
(
25 of
49)
2nd Serve Won
51%
(
25 of
49)
33%
(
4 of
12)
Break Points Won
33%
(
4 of
12)
44%
(
47 of
107)
Rtn Points Won
44%
(
39 of
89)
99
Total Points Won
97
|
6-3 2-6 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Emilio Nava
Player
Jesper De Jong
62%
(
29 of
47)
1st Serve %
63%
(
35 of
56)
4
Aces
1
2
Double Faults
4
72%
(
21 of
29)
1st Serve Won
57%
(
20 of
35)
83%
(
15 of
18)
2nd Serve Won
33%
(
7 of
21)
40%
(
4 of
10)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
5)
23%
(
11 of
47)
Rtn Points Won
52%
(
29 of
56)
65
Total Points Won
38
|
6-1 6-3 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Jesper De Jong
Player
Francesco Passaro
65%
(
68 of
104)
1st Serve %
75%
(
81 of
108)
3
Aces
0
1
Double Faults
3
78%
(
53 of
68)
1st Serve Won
60%
(
49 of
81)
44%
(
16 of
36)
2nd Serve Won
63%
(
17 of
27)
40%
(
4 of
10)
Break Points Won
60%
(
3 of
5)
34%
(
35 of
104)
Rtn Points Won
39%
(
42 of
108)
111
Total Points Won
101
|
6-3 6-7(2) 7-6(1) | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Jesper De Jong
Player
Petr Nouza
55%
(
24 of
44)
1st Serve %
56%
(
25 of
45)
2
Aces
3
1
Double Faults
4
83%
(
20 of
24)
1st Serve Won
56%
(
14 of
25)
70%
(
14 of
20)
2nd Serve Won
35%
(
7 of
20)
80%
(
4 of
5)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
23%
(
10 of
44)
Rtn Points Won
53%
(
24 of
45)
58
Total Points Won
31
|
6-2 6-1 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Alejandro Moro Canas
Player
Jesper De Jong
59%
(
39 of
66)
1st Serve %
56%
(
35 of
63)
3
Aces
1
2
Double Faults
2
74%
(
29 of
39)
1st Serve Won
63%
(
22 of
35)
56%
(
15 of
27)
2nd Serve Won
46%
(
13 of
28)
67%
(
4 of
6)
Break Points Won
60%
(
3 of
5)
33%
(
22 of
66)
Rtn Points Won
44%
(
28 of
63)
72
Total Points Won
57
|
7-6(1) 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Jesper De Jong
Player
Marcello Serafini
58%
(
29 of
50)
1st Serve %
64%
(
36 of
56)
5
Aces
1
0
Double Faults
4
79%
(
23 of
29)
1st Serve Won
61%
(
22 of
36)
62%
(
13 of
21)
2nd Serve Won
30%
(
6 of
20)
57%
(
4 of
7)
Break Points Won
50%
(
1 of
2)
28%
(
14 of
50)
Rtn Points Won
50%
(
28 of
56)
64
Total Points Won
42
|
6-3 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Jesper De Jong
Player
Nerman Fatic
57%
(
49 of
86)
1st Serve %
70%
(
58 of
83)
3
Aces
5
2
Double Faults
1
78%
(
38 of
49)
1st Serve Won
71%
(
41 of
58)
51%
(
19 of
37)
2nd Serve Won
56%
(
14 of
25)
20%
(
1 of
5)
Break Points Won
67%
(
2 of
3)
34%
(
29 of
86)
Rtn Points Won
34%
(
28 of
83)
85
Total Points Won
84
|
3-6 7-6(6) 4-1 ret. | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Valentin Royer
Player
Jesper De Jong
63%
(
34 of
54)
1st Serve %
57%
(
34 of
60)
4
Aces
6
0
Double Faults
3
68%
(
23 of
34)
1st Serve Won
59%
(
20 of
34)
60%
(
12 of
20)
2nd Serve Won
35%
(
9 of
26)
50%
(
5 of
10)
Break Points Won
33%
(
1 of
3)
35%
(
19 of
54)
Rtn Points Won
52%
(
31 of
60)
66
Total Points Won
48
|
6-2 6-3 | H2H | ||
view more
Emilio Nava Recent Matches Played
Before:
| opponent | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2 |
Stats
Denis Yevseyev
Player
Emilio Nava
49%
(
36 of
73)
1st Serve %
49%
(
37 of
75)
3
Aces
7
5
Double Faults
5
58%
(
21 of
36)
1st Serve Won
57%
(
21 of
37)
54%
(
20 of
37)
2nd Serve Won
34%
(
13 of
38)
56%
(
5 of
9)
Break Points Won
40%
(
2 of
5)
44%
(
32 of
73)
Rtn Points Won
55%
(
41 of
75)
82
Total Points Won
66
|
7-6(8) 6-0 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Emilio Nava
Player
Jacopo Berrettini
61%
(
74 of
121)
1st Serve %
63%
(
73 of
116)
4
Aces
0
8
Double Faults
2
69%
(
51 of
74)
1st Serve Won
64%
(
47 of
73)
45%
(
21 of
47)
2nd Serve Won
49%
(
21 of
43)
40%
(
6 of
15)
Break Points Won
31%
(
4 of
13)
40%
(
49 of
121)
Rtn Points Won
41%
(
48 of
116)
120
Total Points Won
117
|
6-7(2) 6-4 7-5 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Alexandre Muller
Player
Emilio Nava
74%
(
54 of
73)
1st Serve %
51%
(
37 of
72)
2
Aces
6
1
Double Faults
5
74%
(
40 of
54)
1st Serve Won
57%
(
21 of
37)
63%
(
12 of
19)
2nd Serve Won
63%
(
22 of
35)
67%
(
4 of
6)
Break Points Won
67%
(
2 of
3)
29%
(
21 of
73)
Rtn Points Won
40%
(
29 of
72)
81
Total Points Won
64
|
4-6 6-1 6-4 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Mariano Navone
Player
Emilio Nava
65%
(
64 of
99)
1st Serve %
56%
(
55 of
98)
0
Aces
2
3
Double Faults
6
63%
(
40 of
64)
1st Serve Won
56%
(
31 of
55)
49%
(
17 of
35)
2nd Serve Won
44%
(
19 of
43)
40%
(
6 of
15)
Break Points Won
45%
(
5 of
11)
42%
(
42 of
99)
Rtn Points Won
49%
(
48 of
98)
105
Total Points Won
92
|
4-6 6-1 7-6(4) | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Emilio Nava
Player
Lorenzo Sonego
48%
(
40 of
84)
1st Serve %
65%
(
44 of
68)
5
Aces
1
4
Double Faults
4
70%
(
28 of
40)
1st Serve Won
70%
(
31 of
44)
57%
(
25 of
44)
2nd Serve Won
38%
(
9 of
24)
60%
(
3 of
5)
Break Points Won
18%
(
2 of
11)
37%
(
31 of
84)
Rtn Points Won
41%
(
28 of
68)
81
Total Points Won
71
|
7-6(4) 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Emilio Nava
Player
Jesper De Jong
62%
(
29 of
47)
1st Serve %
63%
(
35 of
56)
4
Aces
1
2
Double Faults
4
72%
(
21 of
29)
1st Serve Won
57%
(
20 of
35)
83%
(
15 of
18)
2nd Serve Won
33%
(
7 of
21)
40%
(
4 of
10)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
5)
23%
(
11 of
47)
Rtn Points Won
52%
(
29 of
56)
65
Total Points Won
38
|
6-1 6-3 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Benjamin Hassan
Player
Emilio Nava
66%
(
42 of
64)
1st Serve %
75%
(
44 of
59)
2
Aces
2
1
Double Faults
1
71%
(
30 of
42)
1st Serve Won
64%
(
28 of
44)
73%
(
16 of
22)
2nd Serve Won
47%
(
7 of
15)
50%
(
3 of
6)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
7)
28%
(
18 of
64)
Rtn Points Won
41%
(
24 of
59)
70
Total Points Won
53
|
6-4 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Ugo Blanchet
Player
Emilio Nava
51%
(
37 of
72)
1st Serve %
57%
(
51 of
89)
1
Aces
2
3
Double Faults
4
70%
(
26 of
37)
1st Serve Won
63%
(
32 of
51)
63%
(
22 of
35)
2nd Serve Won
50%
(
19 of
38)
33%
(
3 of
9)
Break Points Won
100%
(
2 of
2)
33%
(
24 of
72)
Rtn Points Won
43%
(
38 of
89)
86
Total Points Won
75
|
6-4 7-6(3) | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Emilio Nava
Player
Mathys Erhard
61%
(
54 of
88)
1st Serve %
58%
(
41 of
71)
2
Aces
3
5
Double Faults
1
76%
(
41 of
54)
1st Serve Won
76%
(
31 of
41)
47%
(
16 of
34)
2nd Serve Won
47%
(
14 of
30)
57%
(
4 of
7)
Break Points Won
20%
(
2 of
10)
35%
(
31 of
88)
Rtn Points Won
37%
(
26 of
71)
83
Total Points Won
76
|
4-6 6-3 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Roberto Bautista Agut
Player
Emilio Nava
80%
(
66 of
83)
1st Serve %
72%
(
57 of
79)
1
Aces
14
1
Double Faults
2
68%
(
45 of
66)
1st Serve Won
70%
(
40 of
57)
59%
(
10 of
17)
2nd Serve Won
36%
(
8 of
22)
25%
(
2 of
8)
Break Points Won
14%
(
1 of
7)
34%
(
28 of
83)
Rtn Points Won
39%
(
31 of
79)
86
Total Points Won
76
|
6-3 7-6(4) | H2H | ||
view more
Jong Vs Nava 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 [email protected]
