Paterne Mamata vs Dinko Dinev Head-to-Head Stats, Results & Performance Comparison
By Wojtek Kolan
Form
L L L W W L L L L L
Form
W W L W L L W W W LHead-to-head: Mamata 0 - 1 Dinev
They have played 3 sets in total, with Mamata winning 1 and Dinev winning 2. The last match between Mamata and Dinev was at the Brazzaville Challenger, 18-02-2025, First, Clay with Dinko Dinev getting the victory 5-7 6-1 6-2.
Brazzaville Challenger(18-02-2025)
5
7
6
1
6
2
Today’s Tennis Tips:
Sabalenka VS Andreeva PREDICTION Hard
BNP Paribas Open - Indian Wells wta
15 Mar 2025 / Final
ODDS
PREDICTION
EDGE
Draper VS Alcaraz PREDICTION Hard
BNP Paribas Open - Indian Wells atp
15 Mar 2025 / Semifinals
ODDS
PREDICTION
EDGE
| Winning Player | Losing Player | Score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5-7 6-1 6-2 |
Stats 
Dinko Dinev
Player
Paterne Mamata
65%
(
62 of
95)
1st Serve %
45%
(
34 of
75)
4
Aces
2
2
Double Faults
3
65%
(
40 of
62)
1st Serve Won
62%
(
21 of
34)
52%
(
17 of
33)
2nd Serve Won
44%
(
18 of
41)
60%
(
6 of
10)
Break Points Won
30%
(
3 of
10)
40%
(
38 of
95)
Rtn Points Won
48%
(
36 of
75)
93
Total Points Won
77
|
||||
Stats
0
H2H Matches
1
1
Sets Won
2
10
Games Won
17
2
Aces (Total)
4
3
Total Double Faults
2
2:8:59
Average Match Time
2:8:59
45% (34/75)
1st Serve %
65% (62/95)
62% (21/34)
1st Serve Win %
65% (40/62)
44% (18/41)
2nd Serve Win %
52% (17/33)
30% (3/10)
Break Points Won % (Total)
60% (6/10)
40% (38/95)
Return Points Win %
48% (36/75)
0% (0/1)
Best of 3 Sets Win %
100% (1/1)
0% (0/0)
Best of 5 Sets Win %
0% (0/0)
0% (0/0)
Tiebreaks Win % (Total)
0% (0/0)
0% (0/1)
Deciding Set Win %
100% (1/1)
0% (1/0)
1st Set Won, Won Match
0% (0/0)
100% (1/1)
1st Set Won, Lost Match
0% (0/0)
0% (0/0)
1st Set Lost, Won Match
100% (1/1)
Currently displayed stats includes matches of all levels. To exclude lower level events (as per ATP / WTA official stats) toggle button in page footer.
Paterne Mamata vs Dinko Dinev Important H2H Prediction Stats:
Head-to-head: Paterne Mamata 0 - 1 Dinko Dinev
- Recent Trends in Second Serve Performance: Over the past six months, there has been a noticeable discrepancy in the second serve performance of the tennis players. Mamata, unfortunately, has struggled to win any points on their second serve, recording a dismal 0% success rate. On the other hand, Dinev has displayed remarkable prowess, winning a commendable 44.19% of points on their second serve. It is worth noting that this particular statistic holds a significant correlation with the accuracy of match predictions.
- Return Game Stats in Recent Form: When analyzing the return game statistics, it becomes evident that Mamata's recent form in returning serves has not been very impressive. Specifically, Mamata has only managed to win 0% of their opponent's second serve points. In contrast, Dinev has showcased exceptional return skills, triumphing in 53.95% of their opponent's second serve points. This divergence is also observed in the statistics for first serve returns, with Mamata securing a mere 0%, while Dinev excels with a noteworthy 35.62%. Undoubtedly, these figures possess a strong correlation with determining the favored player in their head-to-head matchup.
- Thorough Analysis under Pressure: When faced with pressure situations, Mamata struggles to save breakpoints, having saved 0% of them in recent matches. Conversely, Dinev displays remarkable resilience under pressure, successfully saving 60.47% of breakpoints. This statistic proves valuable in predicting betting outcomes during live in-game situations.
- Comprehensive Performance Overview: Assessing the overall performance of the players over the past year reveals contrasting results. Mamata has only managed to secure victory in 0% of their matches (W/L 0/1), whereas Dinev has displayed superiority, emerging victorious in an impressive 61.97% of matches (W/L 44/27). Considering the head-to-head prediction overview, it is evident that Dinev holds a significant advantage.
- Preferred Surface Specialization: It is intriguing to observe how players excel on different playing surfaces. Mamata's greatest success rate lies on clay, where they have triumphed in 45% of matches (W/L 17/21). Contrastingly, their performance on indoor hard courts is considerably weaker, with a mere 27% success rate (W/L 3/8). Dinev, on the other hand, thrives on clay courts, boasting an impressive 64% win rate (W/L 60/34). However, their performance falters on hard courts, with a 52% win rate (W/L 17/16). These surface-specific statistics hold crucial importance when predicting the outcome of their upcoming match.
- Player Level Analysis: Examining the player levels at which both Mamata and Dinev have competed in the last year reveals interesting insights. Mamata has primarily participated in the Futures/Satellites/ITF tournaments at the $10K level, winning a modest 0% of matches (W/L 0/1). In contrast, Dinev has predominantly competed in the same tournaments, but with far superior results. Dinev has emerged victorious in an impressive 63.77% of matches (W/L 44/25). While comparing stats between players, it is essential to consider the relative level of the events they have competed in.
- Opponent Quality and Rankings: Over the past twelve months, Mamata has encountered opponents with an average rank of 0. Conversely, Dinev has faced opponents with an average rank of 109.49. This discrepancy in opponent quality further emphasizes Dinev's superiority and elevates their chances of success in the upcoming match.
- Deciding Set Performance: For enthusiasts of live predictions and betting, examining the players' performance in deciding sets becomes crucial. Over the past twelve months, Mamata has struggled to prevail in this particular situation, winning a meager 0% of deciding sets. Conversely, Dinev has showcased prowess, triumphing in an impressive 44% of deciding sets throughout their tour matches. This statistic carries significant weight and demands consideration in making accurate predictions.
- Current Event Head-to-Head Stats: While historical player performance undoubtedly holds significance in predicting tennis matches, it is equally important to analyze current event statistics. These stats shed light on players' current form and their ability to perform well in ongoing events. Therefore, it is advisable to refer to the section below (if available) for up-to-date information on player performance during the current event. Additionally, certain players may exhibit superior performance at specific events, a factor that should be taken into account when making outcome predictions.
- Break Point Conversion Prowess: Analyzing the success rate of converting breakpoint opportunities unveils notable differences between Mamata and Dinev. Mamata has struggled to capitalize on these crucial moments, converting a mere 0% of their breakpoint opportunities. Conversely, Dinev has showcased greater efficacy, converting an impressive 43.54% of their chances to break their opponents' serve. This statistic proves invaluable in providing live betting tips when either player encounters a breakpoint opportunity.
- If you have an inclination toward models that predict tennis matches, this article serves as an excellent starting point. It delves into the realm of statistical analysis and provides valuable insights into predicting tennis tournament outcomes (Please note: This article is primarily intended for statistics enthusiasts).
Paterne Mamata Recent Matches Played
Before:
| OPPONENT | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 |
Stats
Dinko Dinev
Player
Paterne Mamata
65%
(
62 of
95)
1st Serve %
45%
(
34 of
75)
4
Aces
2
2
Double Faults
3
65%
(
40 of
62)
1st Serve Won
62%
(
21 of
34)
52%
(
17 of
33)
2nd Serve Won
44%
(
18 of
41)
60%
(
6 of
10)
Break Points Won
30%
(
3 of
10)
40%
(
38 of
95)
Rtn Points Won
48%
(
36 of
75)
93
Total Points Won
77
|
5-7 6-1 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Kacper Szymkowiak
Player
Paterne Mamata
77%
(
48 of
62)
1st Serve %
52%
(
30 of
58)
4
Aces
1
2
Double Faults
3
71%
(
34 of
48)
1st Serve Won
77%
(
23 of
30)
57%
(
8 of
14)
2nd Serve Won
29%
(
8 of
28)
50%
(
3 of
6)
Break Points Won
33%
(
1 of
3)
32%
(
20 of
62)
Rtn Points Won
47%
(
27 of
58)
69
Total Points Won
51
|
6-1 7-6(4) | H2H | ||
| Q1 | 7-5 3-6 6-1 | H2H | |||
| Q1 | 7-6(4) 6-2 | H2H | |||
| R1 | 6-4 6-0 | H2H | |||
| R1 | 6-2 6-4 | H2H | |||
| R2 | 2-6 7-5 6-2 | H2H | |||
| QF | 6-3 2-0 ret. | H2H | |||
| R1 | 7-6(1) 7-6(7) | H2H | |||
| R2 | 7-5 7-6(3) | H2H | |||
view more
Dinko Dinev Recent Matches Played
Before:
| OPPONENT | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SF |
Stats
Geoffrey Blancaneaux
Player
Dinko Dinev
74%
(
28 of
38)
1st Serve %
64%
(
30 of
47)
1
Aces
3
1
Double Faults
2
89%
(
25 of
28)
1st Serve Won
50%
(
15 of
30)
70%
(
7 of
10)
2nd Serve Won
35%
(
6 of
17)
57%
(
4 of
7)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
16%
(
6 of
38)
Rtn Points Won
55%
(
26 of
47)
58
Total Points Won
27
|
6-1 6-2 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Dinko Dinev
Player
Eliakim Coulibaly
59%
(
59 of
100)
1st Serve %
56%
(
45 of
80)
2
Aces
12
2
Double Faults
9
64%
(
38 of
59)
1st Serve Won
78%
(
35 of
45)
59%
(
24 of
41)
2nd Serve Won
49%
(
17 of
35)
50%
(
3 of
6)
Break Points Won
20%
(
2 of
10)
38%
(
38 of
100)
Rtn Points Won
35%
(
28 of
80)
90
Total Points Won
90
|
3-6 6-3 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Dinko Dinev
Player
Maxime Chazal
73%
(
45 of
62)
1st Serve %
69%
(
40 of
58)
12
Aces
3
2
Double Faults
2
80%
(
36 of
45)
1st Serve Won
78%
(
31 of
40)
47%
(
8 of
17)
2nd Serve Won
33%
(
6 of
18)
50%
(
2 of
4)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
1)
29%
(
18 of
62)
Rtn Points Won
36%
(
21 of
58)
65
Total Points Won
55
|
6-4 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Dinko Dinev
Player
Paterne Mamata
65%
(
62 of
95)
1st Serve %
45%
(
34 of
75)
4
Aces
2
2
Double Faults
3
65%
(
40 of
62)
1st Serve Won
62%
(
21 of
34)
52%
(
17 of
33)
2nd Serve Won
44%
(
18 of
41)
60%
(
6 of
10)
Break Points Won
30%
(
3 of
10)
40%
(
38 of
95)
Rtn Points Won
48%
(
36 of
75)
93
Total Points Won
77
|
5-7 6-1 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Ivan Gretskiy
Player
Dinko Dinev
46%
(
32 of
69)
1st Serve %
62%
(
52 of
84)
3
Aces
1
5
Double Faults
4
75%
(
24 of
32)
1st Serve Won
58%
(
30 of
52)
43%
(
16 of
37)
2nd Serve Won
41%
(
13 of
32)
43%
(
6 of
14)
Break Points Won
67%
(
4 of
6)
42%
(
29 of
69)
Rtn Points Won
49%
(
41 of
84)
81
Total Points Won
72
|
6-3 3-6 6-2 | H2H | ||
| Q2 |
Stats
Mikhail Korovin
Player
Dinko Dinev
72%
(
48 of
67)
1st Serve %
48%
(
32 of
66)
1
Aces
0
2
Double Faults
4
63%
(
30 of
48)
1st Serve Won
69%
(
22 of
32)
47%
(
9 of
19)
2nd Serve Won
32%
(
11 of
34)
57%
(
4 of
7)
Break Points Won
43%
(
3 of
7)
42%
(
28 of
67)
Rtn Points Won
50%
(
33 of
66)
72
Total Points Won
61
|
4-6 6-2 10-6 | H2H | ||
| Q1 | 6-2 6-1 | H2H | |||
| R1 |
Stats
Facundo Juarez
Player
Dinko Dinev
57%
(
41 of
72)
1st Serve %
71%
(
61 of
86)
1
Aces
0
2
Double Faults
3
76%
(
31 of
41)
1st Serve Won
57%
(
35 of
61)
39%
(
12 of
31)
2nd Serve Won
40%
(
10 of
25)
38%
(
5 of
13)
Break Points Won
67%
(
4 of
6)
40%
(
29 of
72)
Rtn Points Won
48%
(
41 of
86)
84
Total Points Won
74
|
7-6(3) 7-5 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Dinko Dinev
Player
Federico Campana
63%
(
40 of
64)
1st Serve %
51%
(
35 of
69)
3
Aces
3
2
Double Faults
2
65%
(
26 of
40)
1st Serve Won
60%
(
21 of
35)
54%
(
13 of
24)
2nd Serve Won
56%
(
19 of
34)
29%
(
2 of
7)
Break Points Won
33%
(
3 of
9)
39%
(
25 of
64)
Rtn Points Won
42%
(
29 of
69)
68
Total Points Won
65
|
2-6 6-4 10-6 | H2H | ||
| Q2 |
Stats
Dinko Dinev
Player
Alexander Wagner
64%
(
44 of
69)
1st Serve %
77%
(
54 of
70)
1
Aces
0
3
Double Faults
3
77%
(
34 of
44)
1st Serve Won
57%
(
31 of
54)
48%
(
12 of
25)
2nd Serve Won
44%
(
7 of
16)
40%
(
4 of
10)
Break Points Won
33%
(
2 of
6)
33%
(
23 of
69)
Rtn Points Won
46%
(
32 of
70)
78
Total Points Won
61
|
7-5 6-3 | H2H | ||
view more
Stats Breakdown Vs All H2H Opponents
Stats
38% (24/40)
Win/Loss
61% (80/51)
42% (62/84)
Sets Win/Loss
59% (171/120)
46% (631/733)
Games Win/Loss
54% (1493/1293)
30% (3/7)
Hard Win/Loss
52% (17/16)
44% (17/22)
Clay Win/Loss
64% (63/35)
27% (4/11)
Indoor Hard W/L
0% (0/0)
0% (0/0)
Grass Win/Loss
0% (0/0)
0
Aces Per Game
0.15
3
Aces Total
201
0.01
Double Faults Per Game
0.17
6
Total Double Faults
234
1st Match
Average Match Time
1st Match
556.81
Average Opponent Rank
145.34
48% (64/133)
1st Serve %
60% (3079/5150)
69% (44/64)
1st Serve Win %
65% (1986/3079)
38% (26/69)
2nd Serve Win %
45% (926/2070)
31% (4/13)
Break Points Won % (Total)
45% (236/524)
37% (58/157)
Return Points Win %
42% (2059/4896)
0% (0/0)
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% (0/2)
Challenger W/L
50% (4/4)
39% (24/38)
Futures W/L
62% (76/47)
39% (24/61)
Best of 3 Sets Win %
60% (78/129)
0% (0/0)
Best of 5 Sets Win %
0% (0/0)
33% (6/18)
Tiebreaks Win % (Total)
65% (11/17)
40% (8/20)
Deciding Set Win %
58% (18/31)
72% (29/21)
1st Set Won, Won Match
92% (75/69)
28% (29/8)
1st Set Won, Lost Match
8% (75/6)
11% (35/4)
1st Set Lost, Won Match
20% (56/11)
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]
