Lucrezia Stefanini vs Tereza Valentova Head-to-Head Stats, Results & Performance Comparison

• Both Stefanini and Valentova show similar second serve performance, winning just over 40% of the points.
• Stefanini excels in return games, particularly against second serves, with a winning percentage of 53.08% compared to Valentova's 50.39%.
• Comparing first serve returns, Stefanini has an edge with a 38.65% win rate, while Valentova trails at 31.74%.
• Under pressure, Stefanini saves 47.91% of breakpoints, slightly ahead of Valentova at 46.44%.
• Over the past year, Valentova has a stronger win record of 81.13% (43/10) versus Stefanini's 58.73% (37/26).
• On favorite surfaces, Stefanini prefers Hard courts with a 63% win rate, whereas Valentova shines on Grass with a perfect record.
• In Challenger/ITF tournaments, Valentova has outperformed Stefanini with an 80.85% win rate compared to 58.97%.
• Stefanini has faced stronger competition, with opponents averaging a rank of 234.59 to Valentova's 263.11.
• In deciding sets, Valentova leads, winning 69% while Stefanini wins 54%.
• Recently, Stefanini converts 44.01% of breakpoints while Valentova converts 41.75%, indicating Stefanini's slight efficiency advantage.

Editorial Prediction (June 25, 2025, UTC):

As we compare the players, Valentova holds a more impressive record over the past year with a superior winning percentage and success in deciding sets. Despite her slight disadvantage in breakpoints saved and break point conversion, her overall match performance stands strong.

Alternatively, Stefanini demonstrates more agility in her return games and breakpoint conversion rates, which could provide opportunities in a closely contested match. Her experience against high-ranked players is also a notable strength that could influence the outcome.

Considering all factors, including Valentova’s higher winning trend and success in crucial match moments, Valentova appears slightly more favorable to win the upcoming match, though Stefanini’s strengths make the contest potentially competitive.