Patrick Brady vs Micah Braswell Head-to-Head Stats, Results & Performance Comparison
By Wojtek Kolan
Form
L W W L W L W W L L
Form
W W L W W W L L W WHead-To-Head: Brady 0 - 1 Braswell
They have played 2 sets in total, with Brady winning 0 and Braswell winning 2. The last match between Brady and Braswell was at the Glasgow Challenger, 16-02-2025, Q1 round, I.hard with Micah Braswell getting the victory 7-5 7-5.
| Players | Head-To-Head Match Wins |
|---|---|
| Patrick Brady | 0 |
| Micah Braswell | 1 |
Glasgow Challenger(16-02-2025)
7
5
7
5
| Brady | Stats | Braswell |
|---|---|---|
| 50% (3-3) | YTD Win/Loss | 69% (9-4) |
| 0 | Head-to-Head | 1 |
| 856 | Ranking | 428 |
| 728 | Highest Rank | 420 |
| 20 | Age | 23 |
| - | Plays | - |
| 0 | Titles | 2 |
| 50% (54-53) | Career Total W/L | 61% (54-35) |
| $0 | Career Prize Money | $0 |
| 0 | YTD Titles | 0 |
| 0 | Hard H2H | 0 |
| 0 | Clay H2H | 0 |
| 0 | Indoor H2H | 1 |
| 0 | Grass H2H | 0 |
Today’s Tennis Tips:
Korda VS Djokovic PREDICTION Hard
Miami Open - Miami atp
27 Mar 2025 / Quarterfinals
ODDS
PREDICTION
EDGE
Fritz VS Berrettini PREDICTION Hard
Miami Open - Miami atp
27 Mar 2025 / Quarterfinals
ODDS
PREDICTION
EDGE
| Winning Player | Losing Player | Score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7-5 7-5 |
Stats 
Micah Braswell
Player
Patrick Brady
77%
(
56 of
73)
1st Serve %
69%
(
53 of
77)
6
Aces
3
0
Double Faults
2
71%
(
40 of
56)
1st Serve Won
60%
(
32 of
53)
53%
(
9 of
17)
2nd Serve Won
54%
(
13 of
24)
44%
(
4 of
9)
Break Points Won
100%
(
2 of
2)
33%
(
24 of
73)
Rtn Points Won
42%
(
32 of
77)
81
Total Points Won
69
|
||||
| Stats | ||
|---|---|---|
| 0 | H2H Matches | 1 |
| 0 | Sets Won | 2 |
| 10 | Games Won | 14 |
| 3 | Aces (Total) | 6 |
| 2 | Total Double Faults | 0 |
| 2:3:3 | Average Match Time | 2:3:3 |
| 69% (53/77) | 1st Serve % | 77% (56/73) |
| 60% (32/53) | 1st Serve Win % | 71% (40/56) |
| 54% (13/24) | 2nd Serve Win % | 53% (9/17) |
| 100% (2/2) | Break Points Won % (Total) | 44% (4/9) |
| 33% (24/73) | Return Points Win % | 42% (32/77) |
| 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% (0/0) | Deciding Set Win % | 0% (0/0) |
| 0% (0/0) | 1st Set Won, Won Match | 100% (1/1) |
| 0% (0/0) | 1st Set Won, Lost Match | 0% (1/0) |
| 0% (1/0) | 1st Set Lost, Won Match | 0% (0/0) |
Currently displayed stats includes matches of all levels. To exclude lower level events (as per ATP / WTA official stats) toggle button in page footer.
Patrick Brady vs Micah Braswell Important H2H Prediction Stats:
Head-to-head: Patrick Brady 0 - 1 Micah Braswell
Predictions for the Upcoming Tennis Match:
Analysis of Second Serve Performance: Over the past six months, there has been a noticeable discrepancy in the second serve performance between Brady and Braswell. Brady has demonstrated a 44.75% success rate on their second serve, while Braswell has shown a higher level of proficiency with a 51.99% success rate. It is worth noting that a direct correlation exists between this statistical measure and the accuracy of match predictions.
An Examination of Return Game Statistics: Recent return game statistics shed light on Brady's dominance. In the past few months, Brady has triumphed in 50.92% of their opponent's second serve points, compared to Braswell's success rate of 51.58%. Similarly, when it comes to first serve returns, Brady has achieved a solid 35.1% success rate, whereas Braswell has managed a slightly lower rate of 29.68%. These figures provide invaluable insights into determining the favored player in this head-to-head matchup.
Under Pressure Analysis: Pressure plays a significant role in tennis. Brady has exhibited a remarkable ability to save 59.85% of breakpoints during their recent performances. On the other hand, Braswell has also demonstrated proficiency in high-pressure situations, saving an impressive 64.08% of breakpoints. This statistic proves to be a crucial factor for making accurate in-game betting predictions.
Performance Overview: Examining the overall performances in the past year, Brady has achieved a 46.67% winning rate (14 wins and 16 losses), while Braswell has excelled with a winning rate of 66.67% (36 wins and 18 losses). These statistics provide a comprehensive overview of the head-to-head prediction.
Best Surface Analysis: It is essential to consider the playing surface when evaluating player performance. Brady's most successful career surface has been grass, boasting an impressive win-rate of 57% (8 wins and 6 losses). Conversely, their performance on hard courts has been comparatively weaker, with a win-rate of 43% (18 wins and 24 losses). In contrast, Braswell has showcased their exceptional skills on indoor hard courts, winning 66% of their matches (21 wins and 11 losses). However, their performance on clay courts has been lackluster, achieving a win-rate of 0% (0 wins and 5 losses).
Player Level Impressions: Evaluating the competition level in which the players have participated is crucial for predicting the favorite. In the last year, Brady has primarily competed in the Challengers/ITF tournaments with a prize pool surpassing $10,000. During this period, Brady secured victory in 47.37% of matches (9 wins and 10 losses). Meanwhile, Braswell has also predominantly participated in the Challengers/ITF tournaments above the $10,000 threshold, attaining a commendable success rate of 58.06% (18 wins and 13 losses). It is important to emphasize that these statistics are relative to the level of competition each player has faced.
Opponent Quality Assessment: Over the past 12 months, Brady has encountered opponents with an average ranking of 395.3, while Braswell has faced players with an average ranking of 374.04. This insight into the caliber of opposition faced by each player can play a significant role in predicting their performance.
Deciding Set Performance: For those interested in live predictions and betting, assessing the performance of players in deciding sets becomes crucial. Over the last 12 months, Brady has emerged victorious in 40% of deciding sets, while Braswell has displayed exceptional proficiency, winning 59% in all matches played on tour.
Current Event Head-to-Head Stats: Past performance alone cannot dictate future outcomes in tennis matches. Therefore, it is necessary to consider current event statistics to gauge players' current form and performance. For updated statistics regarding the ongoing event, please refer to the designated section below. Moreover, individual players may exhibit superior performance at specific events, a factor that should be taken into account while predicting the match outcome.
Break Point Conversion Analysis: Recent statistics showcase Brady's impressive conversion rate of 45.71% when presented with a breakpoint opportunity. In contrast, Braswell has exhibited a slightly lower conversion rate of 38.17% when attempting to break their opponents' serve. This statistic holds particular significance when considering in-game live betting tips during crucial breakpoint moments.
If you are interested in utilizing models that predict the outcome of tennis matches, this informative article provides an excellent starting point. (Warning: Designed for statistics enthusiasts only)
Patrick Brady Recent Matches Played
Before:
| OPPONENT | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 |
Stats
Micah Braswell
Player
Patrick Brady
77%
(
56 of
73)
1st Serve %
69%
(
53 of
77)
6
Aces
3
0
Double Faults
2
71%
(
40 of
56)
1st Serve Won
60%
(
32 of
53)
53%
(
9 of
17)
2nd Serve Won
54%
(
13 of
24)
44%
(
4 of
9)
Break Points Won
100%
(
2 of
2)
33%
(
24 of
73)
Rtn Points Won
42%
(
32 of
77)
81
Total Points Won
69
|
7-5 7-5 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Ben Jones
Player
Patrick Brady
66%
(
69 of
105)
1st Serve %
70%
(
62 of
88)
16
Aces
3
4
Double Faults
5
74%
(
51 of
69)
1st Serve Won
81%
(
50 of
62)
61%
(
22 of
36)
2nd Serve Won
50%
(
13 of
26)
33%
(
1 of
3)
Break Points Won
10%
(
1 of
10)
30%
(
32 of
105)
Rtn Points Won
28%
(
25 of
88)
98
Total Points Won
95
|
7-6(5) 4-6 6-3 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Patrick Brady
Player
Thomas Drayton
74%
(
46 of
62)
1st Serve %
70%
(
42 of
60)
2
Aces
2
2
Double Faults
3
65%
(
30 of
46)
1st Serve Won
48%
(
20 of
42)
38%
(
6 of
16)
2nd Serve Won
22%
(
4 of
18)
50%
(
6 of
12)
Break Points Won
43%
(
3 of
7)
42%
(
26 of
62)
Rtn Points Won
60%
(
36 of
60)
72
Total Points Won
50
|
6-2 6-3 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Patrick Brady
Player
Kyle Rae
63%
(
27 of
43)
1st Serve %
57%
(
39 of
68)
1
Aces
1
5
Double Faults
4
78%
(
21 of
27)
1st Serve Won
54%
(
21 of
39)
63%
(
10 of
16)
2nd Serve Won
38%
(
11 of
29)
71%
(
5 of
7)
Break Points Won
33%
(
1 of
3)
28%
(
12 of
43)
Rtn Points Won
53%
(
36 of
68)
67
Total Points Won
44
|
6-2 6-2 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Raul Brancaccio
Player
Patrick Brady
60%
(
56 of
94)
1st Serve %
72%
(
81 of
112)
6
Aces
6
5
Double Faults
4
77%
(
43 of
56)
1st Serve Won
63%
(
51 of
81)
47%
(
18 of
38)
2nd Serve Won
48%
(
15 of
31)
50%
(
4 of
8)
Break Points Won
50%
(
4 of
8)
35%
(
33 of
94)
Rtn Points Won
41%
(
46 of
112)
107
Total Points Won
99
|
7-6(4) 3-6 6-3 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Patrick Brady
Player
Max Wiskandt
71%
(
44 of
62)
1st Serve %
63%
(
43 of
68)
2
Aces
2
1
Double Faults
2
75%
(
33 of
44)
1st Serve Won
56%
(
24 of
43)
44%
(
8 of
18)
2nd Serve Won
52%
(
13 of
25)
44%
(
4 of
9)
Break Points Won
40%
(
2 of
5)
34%
(
21 of
62)
Rtn Points Won
46%
(
31 of
68)
72
Total Points Won
58
|
6-4 7-5 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Toby Alex Kodat
Player
Patrick Brady
64%
(
28 of
44)
1st Serve %
64%
(
43 of
67)
6
Aces
4
0
Double Faults
6
89%
(
25 of
28)
1st Serve Won
65%
(
28 of
43)
81%
(
13 of
16)
2nd Serve Won
46%
(
11 of
24)
60%
(
3 of
5)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
14%
(
6 of
44)
Rtn Points Won
42%
(
28 of
67)
66
Total Points Won
45
|
6-4 6-3 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Patrick Brady
Player
Pranav Kumar
70%
(
37 of
53)
1st Serve %
59%
(
36 of
61)
2
Aces
2
6
Double Faults
2
68%
(
25 of
37)
1st Serve Won
47%
(
17 of
36)
44%
(
7 of
16)
2nd Serve Won
44%
(
11 of
25)
60%
(
6 of
10)
Break Points Won
75%
(
3 of
4)
40%
(
21 of
53)
Rtn Points Won
54%
(
33 of
61)
65
Total Points Won
49
|
6-1 7-5 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Patrick Brady
Player
Finn Reynolds
60%
(
55 of
92)
1st Serve %
63%
(
55 of
87)
3
Aces
14
10
Double Faults
6
75%
(
41 of
55)
1st Serve Won
75%
(
41 of
55)
59%
(
22 of
37)
2nd Serve Won
50%
(
16 of
32)
50%
(
3 of
6)
Break Points Won
67%
(
2 of
3)
32%
(
29 of
92)
Rtn Points Won
34%
(
30 of
87)
93
Total Points Won
86
|
6-7(4) 7-6(7) 3-0 ret. | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Dimitar Kuzmanov
Player
Patrick Brady
63%
(
24 of
38)
1st Serve %
73%
(
29 of
40)
2
Aces
0
1
Double Faults
4
83%
(
20 of
24)
1st Serve Won
55%
(
16 of
29)
86%
(
12 of
14)
2nd Serve Won
18%
(
2 of
11)
50%
(
4 of
8)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
16%
(
6 of
38)
Rtn Points Won
55%
(
22 of
40)
54
Total Points Won
24
|
6-1 6-2 | H2H | ||
view more
Micah Braswell Recent Matches Played
Before:
| OPPONENT | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QF |
Stats
Micah Braswell
Player
Daniel Cukierman
77%
(
61 of
79)
1st Serve %
63%
(
50 of
80)
6
Aces
6
2
Double Faults
5
61%
(
37 of
61)
1st Serve Won
56%
(
28 of
50)
61%
(
11 of
18)
2nd Serve Won
50%
(
15 of
30)
33%
(
4 of
12)
Break Points Won
29%
(
2 of
7)
39%
(
31 of
79)
Rtn Points Won
46%
(
37 of
80)
85
Total Points Won
74
|
6-3 7-5 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Micah Braswell
Player
Patrick Brady
77%
(
56 of
73)
1st Serve %
69%
(
53 of
77)
6
Aces
3
0
Double Faults
2
71%
(
40 of
56)
1st Serve Won
60%
(
32 of
53)
53%
(
9 of
17)
2nd Serve Won
54%
(
13 of
24)
44%
(
4 of
9)
Break Points Won
100%
(
2 of
2)
33%
(
24 of
73)
Rtn Points Won
42%
(
32 of
77)
81
Total Points Won
69
|
7-5 7-5 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Stefan Kozlov
Player
Micah Braswell
52%
(
50 of
96)
1st Serve %
51%
(
58 of
114)
6
Aces
5
8
Double Faults
7
74%
(
37 of
50)
1st Serve Won
66%
(
38 of
58)
46%
(
21 of
46)
2nd Serve Won
46%
(
26 of
56)
25%
(
5 of
20)
Break Points Won
57%
(
4 of
7)
40%
(
38 of
96)
Rtn Points Won
44%
(
50 of
114)
108
Total Points Won
102
|
4-6 6-3 6-4 | H2H | ||
| SF |
Stats
Ryan Peniston
Player
Micah Braswell
80%
(
57 of
71)
1st Serve %
53%
(
43 of
81)
2
Aces
5
1
Double Faults
2
74%
(
42 of
57)
1st Serve Won
51%
(
22 of
43)
50%
(
7 of
14)
2nd Serve Won
58%
(
22 of
38)
42%
(
5 of
12)
Break Points Won
25%
(
1 of
4)
31%
(
22 of
71)
Rtn Points Won
46%
(
37 of
81)
86
Total Points Won
66
|
6-2 4-6 6-1 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Micah Braswell
Player
George Loffhagen
61%
(
57 of
93)
1st Serve %
66%
(
57 of
87)
14
Aces
13
3
Double Faults
2
81%
(
46 of
57)
1st Serve Won
75%
(
43 of
57)
50%
(
18 of
36)
2nd Serve Won
67%
(
20 of
30)
25%
(
1 of
4)
Break Points Won
33%
(
2 of
6)
31%
(
29 of
93)
Rtn Points Won
28%
(
24 of
87)
88
Total Points Won
92
|
2-6 7-6(4) 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Micah Braswell
Player
Ben Jones
64%
(
9 of
14)
1st Serve %
57%
(
8 of
14)
4
Aces
2
1
Double Faults
4
100%
(
9 of
9)
1st Serve Won
50%
(
4 of
8)
60%
(
3 of
5)
2nd Serve Won
17%
(
1 of
6)
100%
(
2 of
2)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
14%
(
2 of
14)
Rtn Points Won
64%
(
9 of
14)
21
Total Points Won
7
|
5-0 ret. | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Micah Braswell
Player
Liam Broady
66%
(
66 of
100)
1st Serve %
68%
(
65 of
96)
15
Aces
14
1
Double Faults
3
67%
(
44 of
66)
1st Serve Won
82%
(
53 of
65)
59%
(
20 of
34)
2nd Serve Won
42%
(
13 of
31)
0%
(
0 of
3)
Break Points Won
13%
(
2 of
15)
36%
(
36 of
100)
Rtn Points Won
31%
(
30 of
96)
94
Total Points Won
102
|
7-6(2) 2-6 6-4 | H2H | ||
| SF |
Stats
Arthur Gea
Player
Micah Braswell
67%
(
57 of
85)
1st Serve %
69%
(
62 of
90)
0
Aces
3
3
Double Faults
1
61%
(
35 of
57)
1st Serve Won
55%
(
34 of
62)
64%
(
18 of
28)
2nd Serve Won
50%
(
14 of
28)
50%
(
7 of
14)
Break Points Won
50%
(
5 of
10)
38%
(
32 of
85)
Rtn Points Won
47%
(
42 of
90)
95
Total Points Won
80
|
6-2 5-7 6-4 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Micah Braswell
Player
Dan Added
65%
(
35 of
54)
1st Serve %
62%
(
32 of
52)
0
Aces
0
0
Double Faults
0
71%
(
25 of
35)
1st Serve Won
53%
(
17 of
32)
58%
(
11 of
19)
2nd Serve Won
55%
(
11 of
20)
50%
(
4 of
8)
Break Points Won
100%
(
1 of
1)
33%
(
18 of
54)
Rtn Points Won
46%
(
24 of
52)
60
Total Points Won
46
|
6-2 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Micah Braswell
Player
Louis Dussin
69%
(
54 of
78)
1st Serve %
68%
(
52 of
76)
2
Aces
2
1
Double Faults
1
70%
(
38 of
54)
1st Serve Won
62%
(
32 of
52)
58%
(
14 of
24)
2nd Serve Won
50%
(
12 of
24)
38%
(
3 of
8)
Break Points Won
25%
(
2 of
8)
33%
(
26 of
78)
Rtn Points Won
42%
(
32 of
76)
84
Total Points Won
70
|
7-6(2) 6-4 | H2H | ||
view more
Stats Breakdown Vs All H2H Opponents
| Stats | ||
|---|---|---|
| 50% (54/53) | Win/Loss | 61% (54/35) |
| 50% (121/122) | Sets Win/Loss | 58% (119/87) |
| 50% (1198/1187) | Games Win/Loss | 52% (1041/957) |
| 43% (18/24) | Hard Win/Loss | 62% (31/19) |
| 0% (0/0) | Clay Win/Loss | 0% (0/5) |
| 55% (28/23) | Indoor Hard W/L | 68% (23/11) |
| 57% (8/6) | Grass Win/Loss | 0% (0/0) |
| 0.17 | Aces Per Game | 0.3 |
| 194 | Aces Total | 287 |
| 0.24 | Double Faults Per Game | 0.23 |
| 280 | Total Double Faults | 228 |
| 1:54:7 | Average Match Time | 1:35:27 |
| 491.7 | Average Opponent Rank | 416.96 |
| 68% (4960/7288) | 1st Serve % | 58% (3249/5574) |
| 66% (3264/4960) | 1st Serve Win % | 68% (2208/3249) |
| 49% (1140/2328) | 2nd Serve Win % | 50% (1173/2325) |
| 43% (303/708) | Break Points Won % (Total) | 43% (240/556) |
| 40% (2910/7302) | Return Points Win % | 40% (2194/5454) |
| 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) |
| 51% (19/18) | Challenger W/L | 59% (20/14) |
| 50% (35/35) | Futures W/L | 62% (34/21) |
| 49% (51/104) | Best of 3 Sets Win % | 60% (52/86) |
| 100% (1/1) | Best of 5 Sets Win % | 0% (0/1) |
| 50% (16/32) | Tiebreaks Win % (Total) | 52% (14/27) |
| 45% (14/31) | Deciding Set Win % | 59% (17/29) |
| 83% (52/43) | 1st Set Won, Won Match | 87% (52/45) |
| 17% (52/9) | 1st Set Won, Lost Match | 13% (52/7) |
| 17% (54/9) | 1st Set Lost, Won Match | 24% (37/9) |
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]
