Predictions
Matches
Calendar
H2H
Rankings
Picks Blog
Nathan Ponwith vs Philip Henning 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 Ponwith vs Henning analysis and find out who is favored!
Nathan Ponwith vs Philip Henning Important H2H Prediction Stats:
- Second serve performance recent form: In recent form (last 6 months), Ponwith has won 52.72% of points on his second serve, while Henning has won 57.81%. There is a high correlation between this stat and match prediction accuracy.
- Return game stats recent form: Return stats show Ponwith, in recent form, has won 46.96% of his opponent's second serve points, while Henning has won 55.97%. The same stats for first serve returns are 30.39% and 37.28% respectively and this has a high correlation to pick who is favored in this H2H matchup.
- Under pressure analysis: Ponwith has saved 57.47% of breakpoints in recent form, whereas Henning has saved 60.33% which is a useful statistic for in-game betting predictions.
- Performance overview: Over the last year Ponwith has won 29.41% of matches played (W/L 15/ 36), with Henning winning 84.78% (W/L 39/ 7) that gives us an overall head-to head prediction overview.
- Best surface: Ponwith has their best career surface win % on Clay, winning 58% (W/L 36/ 26), and worse career win % on I.hard, winning 36% (W/L 8/ 14). Henning has their best career surface win % on I.hard, winning 83% (W/L 5/ 1), and worse career win % on Clay, winning 50% (W/L 4/ 4).
- Player level: In the last year, Ponwith has played most of their matches on the Challengers/ITF tournaments > $10K, winning 21.88% of matches (W/L 7/ 25), where as Henning has played most of their matches on the Futures/Satellites/ITF tournaments $10K, winning 84.78% of matches (W/L 39/ 7). 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 Ponwith winning 0 times. They have played 3 sets in total, with Ponwith winning 1 and Henning winning 2. The last match between Ponwith and Henning was at the M25 Austin, 18-11-2021, Second, Hard with Philip Henning getting the victory .
- Head to head match duration: In past head to head matches, the average match time between these players has been 3:19:0.
- Deciding set H2H prediction: Ponwith and Henning have played a deciding set 1 times, with Ponwith winning 0 times and Henning 1 times. Very useful for predicting the outcome if this match goes the distance.
- Head-to-Head extreme pressure situations: They have played 1 tiebreaks against each other with Ponwith winning 1, and Henning 0.
- Opponent quality stats: Over the last 12 months, Ponwith has played against opponents with an average rank of 191.24 while Henning has played against players with an average rank of 111.41.
- Deciding set performance vs all players: If you are interested in live predictions and betting, if this match goes into a deciding set, Ponwith has won 42% of deciding sets over the last 12 months, while Henning has won 70% in all matches played on tour.
- Break point conversion: In recent form, Ponwith has converted 37.98% of breakpoint opportunities, and Henning has converted 48.85% 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: Ponwith 0 - 1 Henning
745
Rank
367
High
26
Age
R
Plays
0
Total1
0
Hard1
0
Clay0
0
Indoor0
0
Grass0
526
Rank
526
High
23
Age
R
Plays
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
Form
W
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
55% (166-134)
Career Total W/L
79% (48-13)
37% (7-12)
YTD W/L
84% (16-3)
$0
Career Prize Money
$0
0
YTD Titles
2
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 | Nathan Ponwith | Philip Henning |
|---|---|---|
| All H2H Matches | 0 | 1 |
| Sets Won | 1 | 2 |
| Games Won | 14 | 19 |
| Aces (Total) | 1 | 8 |
| DFs (Total) | 3 | 1 |
| Avg Match Time | 3:19:0 | 3:19:0 |
| 1st Serve % | 61% (67/110) | 72% (81/112) |
| 1st Serve Win% | 60% (40/67) | 65% (53/81) |
| 2nd Serve Win% | 56% (24/43) | 45% (14/31) |
| BPs Won% (Total) | 50% (3/6) | 35% (6/17) |
| Return Points W% | 40% (45/112) | 42% (46/110) |
| 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) | 100% (1/1) | 0% (0/1) |
| Deciding Set Win% | 0% (0/1) | 100% (1/1) |
| 1st set W, W | 0% (1/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| 1st set W, L | 100% (1/1) | 0% (0/0) |
| 1st set L, W | 0% (0/0) | 100% (1/1) |
| Winning Player | Losing Player | Score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6-7(2) 7-5 6-2 |
Stats 
Philip Henning
Player
Nathan Ponwith
72%
(
81 of
112)
1st Serve %
61%
(
67 of
110)
8
Aces
1
1
Double Faults
3
65%
(
53 of
81)
1st Serve Won
60%
(
40 of
67)
45%
(
14 of
31)
2nd Serve Won
56%
(
24 of
43)
35%
(
6 of
17)
Break Points Won
50%
(
3 of
6)
40%
(
45 of
112)
Rtn Points Won
42%
(
46 of
110)
113
Total Points Won
109
|
||||
Stats Breakdown Vs All H2H Opponents
| stats | Nathan Ponwith | Philip Henning |
|---|---|---|
| YTD W/L | 37% (7/12) | 84% (16/3) |
| Sets Win/Loss | 37% (16/27) | 77% (33/10) |
| Games Win/Loss | 46% (187/222) | 59% (237/164) |
| Hard Win/Loss | 47% (7/8) | 92% (12/1) |
| Clay Win/Loss | 0% (0/2) | 67% (4/2) |
| Indoor Hard W/L | 0% (0/2) | 0% (0/0) |
| Grass Win/Loss | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Aces pg | 0.2 | 0.28 |
| Aces Total | 40 | 55 |
| DFs per game | 0.36 | 0.09 |
| DFs Total | 72 | 17 |
| Avg Match Time | 1:51:57 | 1:45:37 |
| Avg Opp Rank | 241.32 | 94.11 |
| 1st Serve % | 57% (779/1355) | 70% (863/1233) |
| 1st Serve W% | 63% (494/779) | 66% (573/863) |
| 2nd Serve W% | 52% (301/576) | 57% (210/370) |
| BPs Won% Total | 40% (43/107) | 48% (78/161) |
| Return Pts W% | 38% (483/1284) | 45% (601/1326) |
| 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 | 29% (2/5) | 0% (0/0) |
| Futures W/L | 42% (5/7) | 84% (16/3) |
| Best of 3 Sets W% | 37% (7/19) | 84% (16/19) |
| Best of 5 Sets W% | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| TBs Win% (Total) | 71% (5/7) | 75% (3/4) |
| Deciding Set W% | 60% (3/5) | 80% (4/5) |
| 1st set W, W | 71% (7/5) | 93% (14/13) |
| 1st set W, L | 29% (7/2) | 7% (14/1) |
| 1st set L, W | 17% (12/2) | 60% (5/3) |
Nathan Ponwith Recent Matches Played
Before:
| opponent | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 |
Stats
Arvid Nordquist
Player
Nathan Ponwith
73%
(
36 of
49)
1st Serve %
54%
(
38 of
71)
2
Aces
1
3
Double Faults
6
78%
(
28 of
36)
1st Serve Won
66%
(
25 of
38)
69%
(
9 of
13)
2nd Serve Won
45%
(
15 of
33)
23%
(
3 of
13)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
24%
(
12 of
49)
Rtn Points Won
44%
(
31 of
71)
68
Total Points Won
52
|
6-3 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Rudy Quan
Player
Nathan Ponwith
62%
(
38 of
61)
1st Serve %
48%
(
31 of
65)
-
Aces
-
1
Double Faults
6
61%
(
23 of
38)
1st Serve Won
48%
(
15 of
31)
52%
(
12 of
23)
2nd Serve Won
38%
(
13 of
34)
64%
(
7 of
11)
Break Points Won
33%
(
4 of
12)
43%
(
26 of
61)
Rtn Points Won
57%
(
37 of
65)
72
Total Points Won
54
|
6-0 7-6(5) | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Maxime Cressy
Player
Nathan Ponwith
65%
(
33 of
51)
1st Serve %
60%
(
29 of
48)
9
Aces
0
6
Double Faults
3
70%
(
23 of
33)
1st Serve Won
41%
(
12 of
29)
39%
(
7 of
18)
2nd Serve Won
37%
(
7 of
19)
67%
(
6 of
9)
Break Points Won
33%
(
2 of
6)
41%
(
21 of
51)
Rtn Points Won
60%
(
29 of
48)
59
Total Points Won
40
|
6-4 6-0 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Nathan Ponwith
Player
Nick Chappell
60%
(
61 of
102)
1st Serve %
69%
(
64 of
93)
0
Aces
6
4
Double Faults
0
70%
(
43 of
61)
1st Serve Won
66%
(
42 of
64)
54%
(
22 of
41)
2nd Serve Won
48%
(
14 of
29)
60%
(
3 of
5)
Break Points Won
27%
(
3 of
11)
36%
(
37 of
102)
Rtn Points Won
40%
(
37 of
93)
102
Total Points Won
93
|
2-6 7-6(2) 6-2 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Nathan Ponwith
Player
Elmar Ejupovic
47%
(
31 of
66)
1st Serve %
56%
(
44 of
78)
3
Aces
5
3
Double Faults
4
84%
(
26 of
31)
1st Serve Won
66%
(
29 of
44)
60%
(
21 of
35)
2nd Serve Won
53%
(
18 of
34)
33%
(
3 of
9)
Break Points Won
17%
(
1 of
6)
29%
(
19 of
66)
Rtn Points Won
40%
(
31 of
78)
78
Total Points Won
66
|
7-6(4) 6-3 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Alafia Ayeni
Player
Nathan Ponwith
59%
(
39 of
66)
1st Serve %
53%
(
31 of
59)
15
Aces
2
5
Double Faults
4
85%
(
33 of
39)
1st Serve Won
81%
(
25 of
31)
56%
(
15 of
27)
2nd Serve Won
57%
(
16 of
28)
50%
(
1 of
2)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
27%
(
18 of
66)
Rtn Points Won
31%
(
18 of
59)
66
Total Points Won
59
|
7-6(5) 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Samir Banerjee
Player
Nathan Ponwith
63%
(
43 of
68)
1st Serve %
56%
(
48 of
86)
7
Aces
1
5
Double Faults
5
79%
(
34 of
43)
1st Serve Won
67%
(
32 of
48)
48%
(
12 of
25)
2nd Serve Won
47%
(
18 of
38)
20%
(
2 of
10)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
4)
32%
(
22 of
68)
Rtn Points Won
42%
(
36 of
86)
82
Total Points Won
72
|
6-4 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Nathan Ponwith
Player
Ezekiel Clark
64%
(
29 of
45)
1st Serve %
60%
(
41 of
68)
11
Aces
0
2
Double Faults
4
86%
(
25 of
29)
1st Serve Won
66%
(
27 of
41)
69%
(
11 of
16)
2nd Serve Won
41%
(
11 of
27)
38%
(
3 of
8)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
20%
(
9 of
45)
Rtn Points Won
44%
(
30 of
68)
66
Total Points Won
47
|
6-3 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Andre Ilagan
Player
Nathan Ponwith
60%
(
36 of
60)
1st Serve %
54%
(
38 of
71)
1
Aces
1
3
Double Faults
2
58%
(
21 of
36)
1st Serve Won
47%
(
18 of
38)
63%
(
15 of
24)
2nd Serve Won
55%
(
18 of
33)
42%
(
5 of
12)
Break Points Won
25%
(
2 of
8)
40%
(
24 of
60)
Rtn Points Won
49%
(
35 of
71)
71
Total Points Won
60
|
6-4 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Nikolay Vylegzhanin
Player
Nathan Ponwith
72%
(
66 of
92)
1st Serve %
63%
(
58 of
92)
1
Aces
1
6
Double Faults
5
59%
(
39 of
66)
1st Serve Won
50%
(
29 of
58)
42%
(
11 of
26)
2nd Serve Won
44%
(
15 of
34)
73%
(
8 of
11)
Break Points Won
71%
(
5 of
7)
46%
(
42 of
92)
Rtn Points Won
52%
(
48 of
92)
98
Total Points Won
86
|
6-7(0) 6-2 6-4 | H2H | ||
view more
Philip Henning Recent Matches Played
Before:
| opponent | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F |
Stats
Facundo Juarez
Player
Philip Henning
72%
(
36 of
50)
1st Serve %
81%
(
44 of
54)
2
Aces
0
4
Double Faults
0
64%
(
23 of
36)
1st Serve Won
39%
(
17 of
44)
36%
(
5 of
14)
2nd Serve Won
40%
(
4 of
10)
44%
(
7 of
16)
Break Points Won
50%
(
3 of
6)
44%
(
22 of
50)
Rtn Points Won
61%
(
33 of
54)
61
Total Points Won
43
|
6-2 6-3 | H2H | ||
| SF |
Stats
Philip Henning
Player
Aleksandre Metreveli
66%
(
55 of
83)
1st Serve %
71%
(
58 of
82)
2
Aces
0
3
Double Faults
5
69%
(
38 of
55)
1st Serve Won
60%
(
35 of
58)
32%
(
9 of
28)
2nd Serve Won
54%
(
13 of
24)
40%
(
4 of
10)
Break Points Won
40%
(
4 of
10)
43%
(
36 of
83)
Rtn Points Won
41%
(
34 of
82)
81
Total Points Won
84
|
1-6 6-4 6-4 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Philip Henning
Player
Kokoro Isomura
63%
(
52 of
82)
1st Serve %
75%
(
80 of
106)
1
Aces
0
0
Double Faults
2
60%
(
31 of
52)
1st Serve Won
54%
(
43 of
80)
60%
(
18 of
30)
2nd Serve Won
54%
(
14 of
26)
28%
(
5 of
18)
Break Points Won
57%
(
4 of
7)
40%
(
33 of
82)
Rtn Points Won
46%
(
49 of
106)
98
Total Points Won
90
|
3-6 6-4 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Philip Henning
Player
Manuel Mazza
63%
(
46 of
73)
1st Serve %
54%
(
49 of
90)
3
Aces
4
0
Double Faults
4
72%
(
33 of
46)
1st Serve Won
61%
(
30 of
49)
59%
(
16 of
27)
2nd Serve Won
46%
(
19 of
41)
56%
(
5 of
9)
Break Points Won
60%
(
3 of
5)
33%
(
24 of
73)
Rtn Points Won
46%
(
41 of
90)
90
Total Points Won
73
|
6-3 4-6 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Philip Henning
Player
Mikhail Korovin
63%
(
45 of
71)
1st Serve %
71%
(
49 of
69)
3
Aces
2
1
Double Faults
2
64%
(
29 of
45)
1st Serve Won
71%
(
35 of
49)
85%
(
22 of
26)
2nd Serve Won
45%
(
9 of
20)
50%
(
2 of
4)
Break Points Won
33%
(
1 of
3)
28%
(
20 of
71)
Rtn Points Won
36%
(
25 of
69)
76
Total Points Won
64
|
7-6(8) 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Gabriele Bosio
Player
Philip Henning
60%
(
47 of
78)
1st Serve %
67%
(
53 of
79)
2
Aces
1
6
Double Faults
3
62%
(
29 of
47)
1st Serve Won
51%
(
27 of
53)
48%
(
15 of
31)
2nd Serve Won
42%
(
11 of
26)
86%
(
6 of
7)
Break Points Won
40%
(
4 of
10)
44%
(
34 of
78)
Rtn Points Won
52%
(
41 of
79)
85
Total Points Won
72
|
7-6(3) 6-3 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Martyn Pawelski
Player
Philip Henning
60%
(
49 of
82)
1st Serve %
69%
(
73 of
106)
10
Aces
5
4
Double Faults
0
73%
(
36 of
49)
1st Serve Won
60%
(
44 of
73)
42%
(
14 of
33)
2nd Serve Won
48%
(
16 of
33)
33%
(
5 of
15)
Break Points Won
67%
(
4 of
6)
39%
(
32 of
82)
Rtn Points Won
43%
(
46 of
106)
96
Total Points Won
92
|
3-6 6-4 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Philip Henning
Player
Vadym Ursu
76%
(
48 of
63)
1st Serve %
51%
(
37 of
73)
5
Aces
1
0
Double Faults
8
63%
(
30 of
48)
1st Serve Won
65%
(
24 of
37)
53%
(
8 of
15)
2nd Serve Won
42%
(
15 of
36)
50%
(
4 of
8)
Break Points Won
50%
(
2 of
4)
40%
(
25 of
63)
Rtn Points Won
47%
(
34 of
73)
72
Total Points Won
64
|
6-4 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Philip Henning
Player
Nicolas Jadoun
83%
(
35 of
42)
1st Serve %
58%
(
31 of
53)
2
Aces
3
-
Double Faults
-
77%
(
27 of
35)
1st Serve Won
58%
(
18 of
31)
71%
(
5 of
7)
2nd Serve Won
36%
(
8 of
22)
57%
(
4 of
7)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
24%
(
10 of
42)
Rtn Points Won
51%
(
27 of
53)
59
Total Points Won
36
|
6-2 6-2 | H2H | ||
| F |
Stats
Philip Henning
Player
Faris Zakaryia
73%
(
43 of
59)
1st Serve %
67%
(
43 of
64)
2
Aces
1
1
Double Faults
1
67%
(
29 of
43)
1st Serve Won
53%
(
23 of
43)
44%
(
7 of
16)
2nd Serve Won
43%
(
9 of
21)
42%
(
5 of
12)
Break Points Won
40%
(
2 of
5)
39%
(
23 of
59)
Rtn Points Won
50%
(
32 of
64)
68
Total Points Won
55
|
6-3 6-3 | H2H | ||
view more
Ponwith Vs Henning 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]
