Kyle Kang vs Jan Hrazdil 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 Kang vs Hrazdil analysis and find out who is favored!
Kyle Kang vs Jan Hrazdil Important H2H Prediction Stats:
- Second serve performance recent form: In recent form (last 6 months), Kang has won 49.61% of points on his second serve, while Hrazdil has won 43.94%. There is a high correlation between this stat and match prediction accuracy.
- Return game stats recent form: Return stats show Kang, in recent form, has won 53.36% of his opponent's second serve points, while Hrazdil has won 52.83%. The same stats for first serve returns are 33.57% and 30.92% respectively and this has a high correlation to pick who is favored in this H2H matchup.
- Under pressure analysis: Kang has saved 64.86% of breakpoints in recent form, whereas Hrazdil has saved 60.19% which is a useful statistic for in-game betting predictions.
- Performance overview: Over the last year Kang has won 52.17% of matches played (W/L 12/ 11), with Hrazdil winning 47.22% (W/L 17/ 19) that gives us an overall head-to head prediction overview.
- Best surface: Kang has their best career surface win % on Clay, winning 62% (W/L 21/ 13), and worse career win % on I.hard, winning 0% (W/L 0/ 5). Hrazdil has their best career surface win % on Clay, winning 50% (W/L 13/ 13), and worse career win % on I.hard, winning 0% (W/L 0/ 1).
- Player level: In the last year, Kang has played most of their matches on the Futures/Satellites/ITF tournaments $10K, winning 68.75% of matches (W/L 11/ 5), where as Hrazdil has played most of their matches on the Futures/Satellites/ITF tournaments $10K, winning 47.06% of matches (W/L 16/ 18). When comparing stats between players to predict the favorite, it is of course all relative to the event level they have been playing at.
- Opponent quality stats: Over the last 12 months, Kang has played against opponents with an average rank of 227.78 while Hrazdil has played against players with an average rank of 150.67.
- Deciding set performance vs all players: If you are interested in live predictions and betting, if this match goes into a deciding set, Kang has won 33% of deciding sets over the last 12 months, while Hrazdil has won 44% in all matches played on tour.
- Break point conversion: In recent form, Kang has converted 40.28% of breakpoint opportunities, and Hrazdil has converted 49.37% 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: Kang 0 - 0 Hrazdil
0
Total
0
Mast
0
Chall
0
Slam
0
Main
0
Minor
772
Rank
591
High
19
Age
Plays
0
Total0
0
Hard0
0
Clay0
0
Indoor0
0
Grass0
N/A
Rank
High
19
Age
Plays
0
Total
0
Mast
0
Chall
0
Slam
0
Main
0
Minor
Form
52% (43-40)
Career Total W/L
45% (20-24)
40% (2-3)
YTD W/L
33% (3-6)
$0
Career Prize Money
$0
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.
No H2H Matches Available
Stats Breakdown Vs All H2H Opponents
stats | Kyle Kang | Jan Hrazdil |
---|---|---|
YTD W/L | 40% (2/3) | 33% (3/6) |
Sets Win/Loss | 45% (5/6) | 38% (8/13) |
Games Win/Loss | 50% (50/50) | 48% (99/109) |
Hard Win/Loss | 40% (2/3) | 50% (3/3) |
Clay Win/Loss | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/3) |
Indoor Hard W/L | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
Grass Win/Loss | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
Aces pg | 0.22 | 0.19 |
Aces Total | 11 | 20 |
DFs per game | 0.14 | 0.28 |
DFs Total | 7 | 29 |
Avg Match Time | 1:32:42 | 1st Match |
Avg Opp Rank | 217 | 96 |
1st Serve % | 60% (191/320) | 61% (235/385) |
1st Serve W% | 66% (126/191) | 66% (154/235) |
2nd Serve W% | 47% (61/129) | 37% (55/150) |
BPs Won% Total | 46% (16/35) | 47% (18/38) |
Return Pts W% | 40% (124/312) | 42% (166/398) |
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% (0/0) |
Main Tour W/L | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
Tour Finals W/L | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
Challenger W/L | 0% (0/2) | 0% (0/0) |
Futures W/L | 67% (2/1) | 33% (3/6) |
Best of 3 Sets W% | 40% (2/5) | 33% (3/9) |
Best of 5 Sets W% | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
TBs Win% (Total) | 0% (0/1) | 0% (0/1) |
Deciding Set W% | 0% (0/1) | 33% (1/3) |
1st set W, W | 67% (3/2) | 100% (2/2) |
1st set W, L | 33% (3/1) | 0% (2/0) |
1st set L, W | 0% (2/0) | 14% (7/1) |
Kyle Kang Recent Matches Played
opponent | Score | H2H | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
QF |
Charles Broom
Player
Kyle Kang
70%
(
62 of
88)
1st Serve %
53%
(
39 of
74)
0
Aces
2
3
Double Faults
4
60%
(
37 of
62)
1st Serve Won
67%
(
26 of
39)
38%
(
10 of
26)
2nd Serve Won
34%
(
12 of
35)
60%
(
6 of
10)
Break Points Won
36%
(
5 of
14)
47%
(
41 of
88)
Rtn Points Won
49%
(
36 of
74)
83
Total Points Won
79
|
1-6 6-3 6-2 | H2H | ||
R2 |
Kyle Kang
Player
Ethan Quinn
58%
(
42 of
73)
1st Serve %
55%
(
33 of
60)
3
Aces
0
0
Double Faults
6
71%
(
30 of
42)
1st Serve Won
64%
(
21 of
33)
58%
(
18 of
31)
2nd Serve Won
56%
(
15 of
27)
50%
(
3 of
6)
Break Points Won
25%
(
1 of
4)
34%
(
25 of
73)
Rtn Points Won
40%
(
24 of
60)
72
Total Points Won
61
|
7-5 6-3 | H2H | ||
R1 |
Kyle Kang
Player
Axel Nefve
68%
(
39 of
57)
1st Serve %
52%
(
24 of
46)
1
Aces
3
1
Double Faults
3
67%
(
26 of
39)
1st Serve Won
67%
(
16 of
24)
56%
(
10 of
18)
2nd Serve Won
23%
(
5 of
22)
71%
(
5 of
7)
Break Points Won
20%
(
1 of
5)
37%
(
21 of
57)
Rtn Points Won
54%
(
25 of
46)
61
Total Points Won
42
|
6-3 6-1 | H2H | ||
Q1 |
Matias Soto
Player
Kyle Kang
70%
(
47 of
67)
1st Serve %
71%
(
48 of
68)
2
Aces
4
0
Double Faults
2
68%
(
32 of
47)
1st Serve Won
63%
(
30 of
48)
70%
(
14 of
20)
2nd Serve Won
35%
(
7 of
20)
67%
(
4 of
6)
Break Points Won
43%
(
3 of
7)
31%
(
21 of
67)
Rtn Points Won
46%
(
31 of
68)
77
Total Points Won
58
|
7-6(6) 6-3 | H2H | ||
Q1 |
Noah Rubin
Player
Kyle Kang
76%
(
39 of
51)
1st Serve %
48%
(
23 of
48)
4
Aces
1
0
Double Faults
0
79%
(
31 of
39)
1st Serve Won
61%
(
14 of
23)
58%
(
7 of
12)
2nd Serve Won
56%
(
14 of
25)
43%
(
3 of
7)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
1)
25%
(
13 of
51)
Rtn Points Won
42%
(
20 of
48)
58
Total Points Won
41
|
6-3 6-2 | H2H | ||
Q1 |
Sebastian Fanselow
Player
Kyle Kang
60%
(
34 of
57)
1st Serve %
59%
(
43 of
73)
3
Aces
10
4
Double Faults
4
74%
(
25 of
34)
1st Serve Won
63%
(
27 of
43)
57%
(
13 of
23)
2nd Serve Won
40%
(
12 of
30)
29%
(
4 of
14)
Break Points Won
33%
(
1 of
3)
33%
(
19 of
57)
Rtn Points Won
47%
(
34 of
73)
72
Total Points Won
58
|
6-3 6-3 | H2H | ||
SF |
August Holmgren
Player
Kyle Kang
74%
(
52 of
70)
1st Serve %
59%
(
40 of
68)
12
Aces
2
1
Double Faults
1
79%
(
41 of
52)
1st Serve Won
68%
(
27 of
40)
50%
(
9 of
18)
2nd Serve Won
57%
(
16 of
28)
25%
(
2 of
8)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
5)
29%
(
20 of
70)
Rtn Points Won
37%
(
25 of
68)
75
Total Points Won
63
|
7-5 6-4 | H2H | ||
QF |
Kyle Kang
Player
Karue Sell
60%
(
52 of
86)
1st Serve %
60%
(
59 of
99)
5
Aces
1
2
Double Faults
4
69%
(
36 of
52)
1st Serve Won
58%
(
34 of
59)
53%
(
18 of
34)
2nd Serve Won
48%
(
19 of
40)
31%
(
4 of
13)
Break Points Won
30%
(
3 of
10)
37%
(
32 of
86)
Rtn Points Won
46%
(
46 of
99)
100
Total Points Won
85
|
7-6(3) 7-5 | H2H | ||
R2 |
Kyle Kang
Player
Ozan Baris
77%
(
56 of
73)
1st Serve %
69%
(
42 of
61)
0
Aces
1
2
Double Faults
1
64%
(
36 of
56)
1st Serve Won
71%
(
30 of
42)
59%
(
10 of
17)
2nd Serve Won
32%
(
6 of
19)
100%
(
3 of
3)
Break Points Won
14%
(
1 of
7)
37%
(
27 of
73)
Rtn Points Won
41%
(
25 of
61)
71
Total Points Won
63
|
6-4 6-4 | H2H | ||
R1 |
Kyle Kang
Player
Alessio Vasquez Gehrke
63%
(
30 of
48)
1st Serve %
70%
(
37 of
53)
2
Aces
0
2
Double Faults
7
73%
(
22 of
30)
1st Serve Won
49%
(
18 of
37)
56%
(
10 of
18)
2nd Serve Won
38%
(
6 of
16)
38%
(
5 of
13)
Break Points Won
33%
(
1 of
3)
33%
(
16 of
48)
Rtn Points Won
55%
(
29 of
53)
61
Total Points Won
40
|
6-3 6-1 | H2H |
view more
Jan Hrazdil Recent Matches Played
opponent | Score | H2H | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Q1 | 6-4 7-5 | H2H | |||
R1 |
Sebastian Gima
Player
Jan Hrazdil
60%
(
62 of
104)
1st Serve %
65%
(
62 of
95)
0
Aces
2
2
Double Faults
10
56%
(
35 of
62)
1st Serve Won
58%
(
36 of
62)
36%
(
15 of
42)
2nd Serve Won
27%
(
9 of
33)
64%
(
9 of
14)
Break Points Won
47%
(
7 of
15)
52%
(
54 of
104)
Rtn Points Won
53%
(
50 of
95)
100
Total Points Won
99
|
6-4 5-7 6-2 | H2H | ||
Q1 | 7-5 6-2 | H2H | |||
R2 |
Antoine Ghibaudo
Player
Jan Hrazdil
48%
(
35 of
73)
1st Serve %
62%
(
56 of
91)
0
Aces
4
2
Double Faults
4
77%
(
27 of
35)
1st Serve Won
73%
(
41 of
56)
63%
(
24 of
38)
2nd Serve Won
40%
(
14 of
35)
25%
(
2 of
8)
Break Points Won
33%
(
1 of
3)
30%
(
22 of
73)
Rtn Points Won
40%
(
36 of
91)
87
Total Points Won
77
|
7-6(5) 7-5 | H2H | ||
R1 |
Jan Hrazdil
Player
Alexandr Binda
51%
(
47 of
93)
1st Serve %
61%
(
70 of
115)
6
Aces
1
7
Double Faults
0
70%
(
33 of
47)
1st Serve Won
53%
(
37 of
70)
41%
(
19 of
46)
2nd Serve Won
44%
(
20 of
45)
44%
(
7 of
16)
Break Points Won
33%
(
5 of
15)
44%
(
41 of
93)
Rtn Points Won
50%
(
58 of
115)
110
Total Points Won
98
|
4-6 6-2 6-4 | H2H | ||
R1 |
Saba Purtseladze
Player
Jan Hrazdil
54%
(
30 of
56)
1st Serve %
63%
(
29 of
46)
11
Aces
5
2
Double Faults
3
93%
(
28 of
30)
1st Serve Won
69%
(
20 of
29)
58%
(
15 of
26)
2nd Serve Won
59%
(
10 of
17)
50%
(
2 of
4)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
1)
23%
(
13 of
56)
Rtn Points Won
35%
(
16 of
46)
59
Total Points Won
43
|
6-3 6-4 | H2H | ||
QF |
Pablo Trochu
Player
Jan Hrazdil
72%
(
36 of
50)
1st Serve %
68%
(
41 of
60)
1
Aces
3
2
Double Faults
5
64%
(
23 of
36)
1st Serve Won
59%
(
24 of
41)
57%
(
8 of
14)
2nd Serve Won
16%
(
3 of
19)
100%
(
5 of
5)
Break Points Won
100%
(
3 of
3)
38%
(
19 of
50)
Rtn Points Won
55%
(
33 of
60)
64
Total Points Won
46
|
6-1 4-6 10-5 | H2H | ||
Q2 | 6-3 6-3 | H2H | |||
Q1 | 6-0 6-2 | H2H | |||
QF |
Evgeny Philippov
Player
Jan Hrazdil
68%
(
54 of
79)
1st Serve %
51%
(
53 of
104)
0
Aces
3
3
Double Faults
9
74%
(
40 of
54)
1st Serve Won
66%
(
35 of
53)
56%
(
14 of
25)
2nd Serve Won
51%
(
26 of
51)
18%
(
2 of
11)
Break Points Won
100%
(
2 of
2)
32%
(
25 of
79)
Rtn Points Won
41%
(
43 of
104)
97
Total Points Won
86
|
7-6(3) 7-6(1) | H2H |
view more