Philip Henning vs Daniil Glinka Head-to-Head Stats, Results & Performance Comparison

• Question: Who performs better on the second serve in recent form?
  Answer: Glinka has an edge with 45.91% of second serve points won compared to Henning's 42.47%.
• In terms of return game stats, Glinka also leads, winning 43.5% of opponents' second serve points, while Henning wins 40.44%.
• However, Henning has a slight advantage on first serve returns, winning 25.29%, compared to Glinka's 23.07%.
• Henning shows greater resilience under pressure, saving 57.14% of breakpoints, against Glinka's 52.32%.
• Overall, Henning has a marginally better match win percentage in the last year at 65.08%, compared to Glinka’s 63.49%.
• Considering surface preferences, Henning excels on Hard courts with a career win rate of 78%, whereas Glinka's best surface is Indoor Hard at 57%.
• Henning has competed in more lower-tier events, winning 81.08% in ITF tournaments compared to Glinka's 69.39% in the same level.
• Henning’s opponents have been stronger, with an average rank of 383.35, while Glinka’s faced players ranked on average 437.38.
• Should the match reach a deciding set, Glinka seems more reliable, having won 56% of such sets in the last year, compared to Henning’s 33% success rate.
• Henning has been more effective in converting breakpoints, achieving a conversion rate of 31.07% versus Glinka’s 28.87%.

Editorial Prediction (May 27, 2025, UTC):

The upcoming match between Henning and Glinka promises to be a close contest, considering both players' recent performances and statistical matchups.

Glinka displays a stronger second serve performance and is slightly better at converting return points. These advantages might prove decisive in crucial games. Conversely, Henning shows resilience in saving breakpoints and has a slightly superior head-to-head win rate over the past year.

When it comes to surface preferences, Henning appears more adept on hard courts, while Glinka finds more comfort on indoor hard courts. However, Henning's track record on hard surfaces could offer a substantial advantage depending on the court type.

One crucial factor might be the quality of opposition each player has faced, with Henning having encountered tougher competition. Additionally, if the match extends into a deciding set, Glinka’s higher success rate in these situations could prove vital.

Considering all these elements, while it might be tightly contested, Henning seems more likely to emerge victorious in this match.