Katherine Sebov vs Fiona Crawley Head-to-Head Stats, Results & Performance Comparison
By Wojtek Kolan
Form
W W W L W W W L L L
Form
W L L W W W L W W LH2H: Sebov 1 - 0 Crawley
They have played 2 sets in total, with Sebov winning 2 and Crawley winning 0. The last match between Sebov and Crawley was at the W50 Spring, 17-02-2025, Q1 round, Hard with Katherine Sebov getting the victory 6-4 6-1.
| Players | Head-To-Head Match Wins |
|---|---|
| Katherine Sebov | 1 |
| Fiona Crawley | 0 |
W50 Spring(17-02-2025)
6
4
6
1
| Sebov | Stats | Crawley |
|---|---|---|
| 75% (12-4) | YTD Win/Loss | 63% (5-3) |
| 1 | Head-to-Head | 0 |
| 330 | Ranking | 666 |
| 136 | Highest Rank | 348 |
| 26 | Age | 23 |
| - | Plays | - |
| 5 | Titles | 3 |
| 60% (271-182) | Career Total W/L | 67% (47-23) |
| $183,175 | Career Prize Money | $81,500 |
| 1 | YTD Titles | 0 |
| 1 | Hard H2H | 0 |
| 0 | Clay H2H | 0 |
| 0 | Indoor H2H | 0 |
| 0 | Grass H2H | 0 |
Today’s Tennis Tips:
Djokovic VS Dimitrov PREDICTION Hard
Miami Open - Miami atp
28 Mar 2025 / Semifinals
ODDS
OUR PREDICTION
EDGE
Sabalenka VS Pegula PREDICTION Hard
Miami Open - Miami wta
28 Mar 2025 / Final
ODDS
OUR PREDICTION
EDGE
| Winning Player | Losing Player | Score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6-4 6-1 |
Stats 
Katherine Sebov
Player
Fiona Crawley
84%
(
51 of
61)
1st Serve %
66%
(
37 of
56)
0
Aces
1
3
Double Faults
1
65%
(
33 of
51)
1st Serve Won
46%
(
17 of
37)
40%
(
4 of
10)
2nd Serve Won
42%
(
8 of
19)
42%
(
5 of
12)
Break Points Won
50%
(
2 of
4)
39%
(
24 of
61)
Rtn Points Won
55%
(
31 of
56)
68
Total Points Won
49
|
||||
| Stats | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1 | H2H Matches | 0 |
| 2 | Sets Won | 0 |
| 12 | Games Won | 5 |
| 0 | Aces (Total) | 1 |
| 3 | Total Double Faults | 1 |
| 1:30:15 | Average Match Time | 1:30:15 |
| 84% (51/61) | 1st Serve % | 66% (37/56) |
| 65% (33/51) | 1st Serve Win % | 46% (17/37) |
| 40% (4/10) | 2nd Serve Win % | 42% (8/19) |
| 42% (5/12) | Break Points Won % (Total) | 50% (2/4) |
| 55% (31/56) | Return Points Win % | 39% (24/61) |
| 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.
Katherine Sebov vs Fiona Crawley Important H2H Prediction Stats:
Head-to-head: Katherine Sebov 1 - 0 Fiona Crawley
Prediction Analysis: Forecasting the outcome of a tennis match demands a meticulous examination of various factors. One pivotal aspect to consider is the second serve performance in recent form. Within the past six months, Sebov has triumphed in an impressive 50.65% of points on their second serve, while Crawley has secured 38.79% of such points. By virtue of a strong correlation between this statistical measure and the accuracy of match predictions, we can derive insightful forecasts.
Return Game Evaluation: Pondering the return game statistics further illuminates the prospects in this upcoming clash. Recent form exhibits Sebov's prowess in winning a notable 59.55% of their opponent's second serve points. In contrast, Crawley has achieved a commendable 62.45% in this regard. Considering the corresponding figures for first serve returns, Sebov has obtained a commendable 42.63%, whereas Crawley achieved a slightly inferior 36.45%. Notably, such statistics bear a high correlation with determining the favored player in this anticipated head-to-head matchup.
Clutch Performance Analysis: The ability to save breakpoints showcases a player's tenacity and resilience. Delving into recent form, Sebov has demonstrated remarkable efficiency, successfully saving an astounding 59.76% of breakpoints. In contrast, Crawley has managed to rescue 35.85% of such pivotal moments. This valuable statistic holds immense significance for those engaging in in-game betting predictions, providing a glimpse into each player's mettle under pressure.
Comprehensive Performance Overview: An encompassing perspective of overall performance is necessary to develop a comprehensive prediction. In the past year, Sebov has emerged victorious in 59.18% of matches played, amassing an impressive win/loss record of 29/20. Meanwhile, Crawley has achieved a commendable 55.56% success rate, boasting a win/loss record of 10/8. Evaluating these figures provides a holistic overview for predicting the outcome of their head-to-head encounter.
Surface Specialization: Analyzing each player's performance on distinct surfaces unveils insightful patterns. Sebov excels on hard surfaces, boasting a remarkable win percentage of 68% (W/L 55/26). However, their performance falters on grass, with a modest 50% win percentage (W/L 3/3). Conversely, Crawley thrives on hard surfaces, obtaining a stellar win percentage of 73% (W/L 37/14). Conversely, their performance diminishes significantly on clay, failing to secure a single victory out of three matches (W/L 0/3).
Player Level Comparison: Assessing the matchless attributes of each player necessitates a meticulous examination of their playing environment. Over the past year, Sebov predominantly competed in the Challengers/ITF tournaments valued at over $10K, winning an impressive 61.7% of matches (W/L 29/18). On the other hand, Crawley predominantly participated in similar Challengers/ITF tournaments, yet their success rate diminished to 38.46% (W/L 5/8). When predicting the favorite, it is paramount to consider the relative skill level of each player, contingent on the tournament level they have habitually engaged in.
Opponent Quality Comparison: In order to establish a comprehensive prediction, it is essential to delve into the caliber of opponents each player has faced. Sebov, over the past 12 months, encountered opponents with an average ranking of 370.1. Conversely, Crawley's opponents held an average ranking of 501.94. This contrasting disparity in opponent quality further enriches the prediction analysis.
Decisive Set Performance: Foretelling the outcome of a match necessitates investigating performance patterns in deciding sets. Over the past 12 months, Sebov has triumphed an impressive 67% of the time during such pivotal junctures. On the other hand, Crawley's win percentage stands at a respectable 43% when referring to all matches played on tour. For those interested in live predictions and betting, these statistics illuminate opportunities when the match extends to a decisive set.
Current Event Head-to-Head Statistics: While historical player performance plays a crucial role in predictive analysis, current event statistics also bear significance. As an event progresses, one must consider the performances of both players in the ongoing tournament. To acquire insights into an in-form player, we encourage you to consult the section below (if available), providing current event statistics. Additionally, certain players may exhibit superior performances at specific events, further emphasizing the need to evaluate such factors when predicting the ultimate outcome.
Break Point Conversion: Evaluating recent form, Sebov has impressively converted 54.1% of their breakpoint opportunities. Conversely, Crawley has displayed notable proficiency, converting 47.06% of their chances to break their opponent's serve. This pivotal statistic holds great relevance when engaging in in-game live betting, particularly when one player faces a breakpoint opportunity.
If you seek sophisticated models that provide accurate predictions for tennis matches, we recommend perusing this informative article (Warning: Statistics enthusiasts only).
Katherine Sebov Recent Matches Played
Before:
| OPPONENT | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 |
Stats
Jessica Failla
Player
Katherine Sebov
81%
(
73 of
90)
1st Serve %
80%
(
48 of
60)
0
Aces
1
5
Double Faults
4
55%
(
40 of
73)
1st Serve Won
65%
(
31 of
48)
59%
(
10 of
17)
2nd Serve Won
8%
(
1 of
12)
80%
(
4 of
5)
Break Points Won
29%
(
4 of
14)
44%
(
40 of
90)
Rtn Points Won
47%
(
28 of
60)
78
Total Points Won
72
|
7-5 4-6 7-6(3) | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Diletta Cherubini
Player
Katherine Sebov
62%
(
31 of
50)
1st Serve %
71%
(
45 of
63)
1
Aces
0
2
Double Faults
3
65%
(
20 of
31)
1st Serve Won
44%
(
20 of
45)
47%
(
9 of
19)
2nd Serve Won
39%
(
7 of
18)
50%
(
6 of
12)
Break Points Won
100%
(
3 of
3)
42%
(
21 of
50)
Rtn Points Won
57%
(
36 of
63)
65
Total Points Won
48
|
6-3 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R2 | 1-6 6-3 6-3 | H2H | |||
| R1 |
Stats
Katherine Sebov
Player
Astra Sharma
88%
(
23 of
26)
1st Serve %
42%
(
10 of
24)
0
Aces
1
0
Double Faults
3
61%
(
14 of
23)
1st Serve Won
50%
(
5 of
10)
33%
(
1 of
3)
2nd Serve Won
14%
(
2 of
14)
80%
(
4 of
5)
Break Points Won
33%
(
1 of
3)
42%
(
11 of
26)
Rtn Points Won
71%
(
17 of
24)
32
Total Points Won
18
|
6-1 1-0 ret. | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Katherine Sebov
Player
Fangran Tian
82%
(
40 of
49)
1st Serve %
65%
(
35 of
54)
0
Aces
1
0
Double Faults
2
53%
(
21 of
40)
1st Serve Won
46%
(
16 of
35)
56%
(
5 of
9)
2nd Serve Won
26%
(
5 of
19)
58%
(
7 of
12)
Break Points Won
60%
(
3 of
5)
47%
(
23 of
49)
Rtn Points Won
61%
(
33 of
54)
59
Total Points Won
44
|
6-3 6-2 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Katherine Sebov
Player
Fiona Crawley
84%
(
51 of
61)
1st Serve %
66%
(
37 of
56)
0
Aces
1
3
Double Faults
1
65%
(
33 of
51)
1st Serve Won
46%
(
17 of
37)
40%
(
4 of
10)
2nd Serve Won
42%
(
8 of
19)
42%
(
5 of
12)
Break Points Won
50%
(
2 of
4)
39%
(
24 of
61)
Rtn Points Won
55%
(
31 of
56)
68
Total Points Won
49
|
6-4 6-1 | H2H | ||
| QF | 7-6(6) 6-2 | H2H | |||
| R2 |
Stats
Katherine Sebov
Player
Vivian Wolff
75%
(
52 of
69)
1st Serve %
68%
(
30 of
44)
0
Aces
0
2
Double Faults
2
60%
(
31 of
52)
1st Serve Won
60%
(
18 of
30)
65%
(
11 of
17)
2nd Serve Won
43%
(
6 of
14)
43%
(
3 of
7)
Break Points Won
8%
(
1 of
12)
39%
(
27 of
69)
Rtn Points Won
45%
(
20 of
44)
62
Total Points Won
51
|
6-2 6-4 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Katherine Sebov
Player
Jasmijn Gimbrere
75%
(
46 of
61)
1st Serve %
57%
(
26 of
46)
0
Aces
1
2
Double Faults
4
67%
(
31 of
46)
1st Serve Won
54%
(
14 of
26)
33%
(
5 of
15)
2nd Serve Won
35%
(
7 of
20)
56%
(
5 of
9)
Break Points Won
18%
(
2 of
11)
41%
(
25 of
61)
Rtn Points Won
54%
(
25 of
46)
61
Total Points Won
46
|
6-1 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Katherine Sebov
Player
Valeriya Strakhova
71%
(
52 of
73)
1st Serve %
69%
(
41 of
59)
0
Aces
0
2
Double Faults
2
52%
(
27 of
52)
1st Serve Won
46%
(
19 of
41)
48%
(
10 of
21)
2nd Serve Won
44%
(
8 of
18)
64%
(
7 of
11)
Break Points Won
63%
(
5 of
8)
49%
(
36 of
73)
Rtn Points Won
54%
(
32 of
59)
69
Total Points Won
63
|
6-4 7-5 | H2H | ||
view more
Fiona Crawley Recent Matches Played
Before:
| OPPONENT | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QF |
Stats
Emily Appleton
Player
Fiona Crawley
69%
(
70 of
102)
1st Serve %
62%
(
62 of
100)
13
Aces
1
10
Double Faults
2
73%
(
51 of
70)
1st Serve Won
47%
(
29 of
62)
41%
(
13 of
32)
2nd Serve Won
68%
(
26 of
38)
55%
(
6 of
11)
Break Points Won
20%
(
3 of
15)
37%
(
38 of
102)
Rtn Points Won
45%
(
45 of
100)
109
Total Points Won
93
|
6-4 6-7(4) 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Fiona Crawley
Player
Jada Robinson
67%
(
30 of
45)
1st Serve %
57%
(
26 of
46)
0
Aces
1
2
Double Faults
2
70%
(
21 of
30)
1st Serve Won
50%
(
13 of
26)
67%
(
10 of
15)
2nd Serve Won
40%
(
8 of
20)
50%
(
5 of
10)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
4)
31%
(
14 of
45)
Rtn Points Won
54%
(
25 of
46)
56
Total Points Won
35
|
6-0 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Fiona Crawley
Player
Carolina Bohrer Martins
54%
(
26 of
48)
1st Serve %
59%
(
29 of
49)
0
Aces
0
3
Double Faults
8
69%
(
18 of
26)
1st Serve Won
45%
(
13 of
29)
64%
(
14 of
22)
2nd Serve Won
45%
(
9 of
20)
63%
(
5 of
8)
Break Points Won
33%
(
1 of
3)
33%
(
16 of
48)
Rtn Points Won
55%
(
27 of
49)
59
Total Points Won
38
|
6-1 6-3 | H2H | ||
| SF |
Stats
Kayla Cross
Player
Fiona Crawley
65%
(
59 of
91)
1st Serve %
63%
(
53 of
84)
2
Aces
0
8
Double Faults
3
73%
(
43 of
59)
1st Serve Won
55%
(
29 of
53)
31%
(
10 of
32)
2nd Serve Won
35%
(
11 of
31)
64%
(
7 of
11)
Break Points Won
33%
(
4 of
12)
42%
(
38 of
91)
Rtn Points Won
52%
(
44 of
84)
97
Total Points Won
78
|
6-0 4-6 6-4 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Fiona Crawley
Player
Carson Branstine
73%
(
76 of
104)
1st Serve %
61%
(
75 of
123)
1
Aces
4
5
Double Faults
6
49%
(
37 of
76)
1st Serve Won
67%
(
50 of
75)
75%
(
21 of
28)
2nd Serve Won
38%
(
18 of
48)
40%
(
6 of
15)
Break Points Won
50%
(
5 of
10)
44%
(
46 of
104)
Rtn Points Won
45%
(
55 of
123)
113
Total Points Won
114
|
4-6 6-4 7-5 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Fiona Crawley
Player
Carol Zhao
73%
(
67 of
92)
1st Serve %
57%
(
64 of
113)
5
Aces
0
3
Double Faults
9
63%
(
42 of
67)
1st Serve Won
53%
(
34 of
64)
40%
(
10 of
25)
2nd Serve Won
33%
(
16 of
49)
47%
(
9 of
19)
Break Points Won
71%
(
5 of
7)
43%
(
40 of
92)
Rtn Points Won
56%
(
63 of
113)
115
Total Points Won
90
|
6-7(4) 6-3 6-0 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Fiona Crawley
Player
Ema Burgic Bucko
63%
(
35 of
56)
1st Serve %
62%
(
37 of
60)
0
Aces
0
2
Double Faults
7
66%
(
23 of
35)
1st Serve Won
51%
(
19 of
37)
52%
(
11 of
21)
2nd Serve Won
30%
(
7 of
23)
55%
(
6 of
11)
Break Points Won
22%
(
2 of
9)
39%
(
22 of
56)
Rtn Points Won
57%
(
34 of
60)
68
Total Points Won
48
|
6-2 6-2 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Katherine Sebov
Player
Fiona Crawley
84%
(
51 of
61)
1st Serve %
66%
(
37 of
56)
0
Aces
1
3
Double Faults
1
65%
(
33 of
51)
1st Serve Won
46%
(
17 of
37)
40%
(
4 of
10)
2nd Serve Won
42%
(
8 of
19)
42%
(
5 of
12)
Break Points Won
50%
(
2 of
4)
39%
(
24 of
61)
Rtn Points Won
55%
(
31 of
56)
68
Total Points Won
49
|
6-4 6-1 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Tatjana Maria
Player
Fiona Crawley
51%
(
24 of
47)
1st Serve %
61%
(
23 of
38)
8
Aces
0
1
Double Faults
3
88%
(
21 of
24)
1st Serve Won
48%
(
11 of
23)
61%
(
14 of
23)
2nd Serve Won
20%
(
3 of
15)
71%
(
5 of
7)
Break Points Won
17%
(
1 of
6)
26%
(
12 of
47)
Rtn Points Won
63%
(
24 of
38)
59
Total Points Won
26
|
6-1 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Fiona Crawley
Player
Justina Mikulskyte
65%
(
36 of
55)
1st Serve %
38%
(
25 of
65)
2
Aces
2
2
Double Faults
8
69%
(
25 of
36)
1st Serve Won
56%
(
14 of
25)
32%
(
6 of
19)
2nd Serve Won
35%
(
14 of
40)
60%
(
6 of
10)
Break Points Won
100%
(
2 of
2)
44%
(
24 of
55)
Rtn Points Won
57%
(
37 of
65)
68
Total Points Won
52
|
6-3 6-1 | H2H | ||
view more
Stats Breakdown Vs All H2H Opponents
| Stats | ||
|---|---|---|
| 60% (271/182) | Win/Loss | 67% (47/23) |
| 59% (607/421) | Sets Win/Loss | 63% (103/60) |
| 54% (5001/4271) | Games Win/Loss | 55% (810/651) |
| 59% (165/113) | Hard Win/Loss | 71% (40/16) |
| 54% (43/36) | Clay Win/Loss | 0% (0/3) |
| 67% (60/30) | Indoor Hard W/L | 64% (7/4) |
| 50% (3/3) | Grass Win/Loss | 0% (0/0) |
| 0.07 | Aces Per Game | 0.06 |
| 333 | Aces Total | 42 |
| 0.22 | Double Faults Per Game | 0.29 |
| 1008 | Total Double Faults | 206 |
| 1:28:47 | Average Match Time | 1:31:43 |
| 463.69 | Average Opponent Rank | 446.44 |
| 72% (18951/26409) | 1st Serve % | 67% (2557/3832) |
| 59% (11087/18951) | 1st Serve Win % | 59% (1518/2557) |
| 46% (3451/7456) | 2nd Serve Win % | 45% (578/1275) |
| 50% (1685/3370) | Break Points Won % (Total) | 51% (281/553) |
| 47% (12229/25849) | Return Points Win % | 49% (1937/3929) |
| 46% (6/7) | Slam W/L | 75% (3/1) |
| 25% (3/9) | Masters W/L | 0% (0/0) |
| 60% (3/2) | Cups W/L | 0% (0/0) |
| 43% (6/8) | Main Tour W/L | 0% (0/1) |
| 0% (0/0) | Tour Finals W/L | 0% (0/0) |
| 61% (238/150) | Challenger W/L | 64% (30/17) |
| 71% (15/6) | Futures W/L | 78% (14/4) |
| 60% (266/442) | Best of 3 Sets Win % | 67% (47/70) |
| 50% (1/2) | Best of 5 Sets Win % | 0% (0/0) |
| 53% (47/89) | Tiebreaks Win % (Total) | 67% (8/12) |
| 48% (63/130) | Deciding Set Win % | 61% (14/23) |
| 86% (271/233) | 1st Set Won, Won Match | 93% (44/41) |
| 14% (271/38) | 1st Set Won, Lost Match | 7% (44/3) |
| 21% (181/38) | 1st Set Lost, Won Match | 23% (26/6) |
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]
