Predictions
Matches
Calendar
H2H
Rankings
Picks Blog
Hazem Naow vs Timo Stodder 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 Naow vs Stodder analysis and find out who is favored!
Hazem Naow vs Timo Stodder Important H2H Prediction Stats:
- Second serve performance recent form: In recent form (last 6 months), Naow has won 50.79% of points on his second serve, while Stodder has won 47.69%. There is a high correlation between this stat and match prediction accuracy.
- Return game stats recent form: Return stats show Naow, in recent form, has won 56.03% of his opponent's second serve points, while Stodder has won 52.28%. The same stats for first serve returns are 34.36% and 30.95% respectively and this has a high correlation to pick who is favored in this H2H matchup.
- Under pressure analysis: Naow has saved 61.98% of breakpoints in recent form, whereas Stodder has saved 54.11% which is a useful statistic for in-game betting predictions.
- Performance overview: Over the last year Naow has won 68.29% of matches played (W/L 56/ 26), with Stodder winning 55.71% (W/L 39/ 31) that gives us an overall head-to head prediction overview.
- Best surface: Naow has their best career surface win % on Hard, winning 71% (W/L 65/ 27), and worse career win % on Clay, winning 60% (W/L 54/ 36). Stodder has their best career surface win % on Hard, winning 68% (W/L 21/ 10), and worse career win % on I.hard, winning 56% (W/L 14/ 11).
- Player level: In the last year, Naow has played most of their matches on the Futures/Satellites/ITF tournaments $10K, winning 70.91% of matches (W/L 39/ 16), where as Stodder has played most of their matches on the Challengers/ITF tournaments > $10K, winning 50% of matches (W/L 20/ 20). 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 Naow winning 1 times. They have played 3 sets in total, with Naow winning 2 and Stodder winning 1. The last match between Naow and Stodder was at the M15 Allershausen, 02-09-2022, Quarterfinals, Clay with Hazem Naow getting the victory .
- Head to head match duration: In past head to head matches, the average match time between these players has been 2:35:0.
- Deciding set H2H prediction: Naow and Stodder have played a deciding set 1 times, with Naow winning 1 times and Stodder 0 times. Very useful for predicting the outcome if this match goes the distance.
- Head-to-Head extreme pressure situations: They have played 0 tiebreaks against each other with Naow winning 0, and Stodder 0.
- Opponent quality stats: Over the last 12 months, Naow has played against opponents with an average rank of 181.83 while Stodder has played against players with an average rank of 240.06.
- Deciding set performance vs all players: If you are interested in live predictions and betting, if this match goes into a deciding set, Naow has won 62% of deciding sets over the last 12 months, while Stodder has won 58% in all matches played on tour.
- Break point conversion: In recent form, Naow has converted 44.85% of breakpoint opportunities, and Stodder has converted 45.3% 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: Naow 1 - 0 Stodder
341
Rank
323
High
24
Age
Plays
1
Total0
0
Hard0
1
Clay0
0
Indoor0
0
Grass0
329
Rank
257
High
27
Age
Plays
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
Form
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
66% (151-78)
Career Total W/L
65% (196-106)
76% (26-8)
YTD W/L
36% (4-7)
$0
Career Prize Money
$0
1
YTD Titles
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.
| stats | Hazem Naow | Timo Stodder |
|---|---|---|
| All H2H Matches | 1 | 0 |
| Sets Won | 2 | 1 |
| Games Won | 14 | 16 |
| Aces (Total) | 1 | 1 |
| DFs (Total) | 7 | 3 |
| Avg Match Time | 2:35:0 | 2:35:0 |
| 1st Serve % | 72% (76/106) | 58% (54/93) |
| 1st Serve Win% | 54% (41/76) | 54% (29/54) |
| 2nd Serve Win% | 47% (14/30) | 56% (22/39) |
| BPs Won% (Total) | 60% (6/10) | 35% (7/20) |
| Return Points W% | 45% (42/93) | 48% (51/106) |
| Best of 3 Sets W% | 100% (1/1) | 0% (0/1) |
| Best of 5 Sets W% | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| TBs Win% (Total) | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Deciding Set Win% | 100% (1/1) | 0% (0/1) |
| 1st set W, W | 0% (0/0) | 0% (1/0) |
| 1st set W, L | 0% (0/0) | 100% (1/1) |
| 1st set L, W | 100% (1/1) | 0% (0/0) |
| Winning Player | Losing Player | Score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0-6 7-5 7-5 |
Stats 
Hazem Naow
Player
Timo Stodder
72%
(
76 of
106)
1st Serve %
58%
(
54 of
93)
1
Aces
1
7
Double Faults
3
54%
(
41 of
76)
1st Serve Won
54%
(
29 of
54)
47%
(
14 of
30)
2nd Serve Won
56%
(
22 of
39)
60%
(
6 of
10)
Break Points Won
35%
(
7 of
20)
48%
(
51 of
106)
Rtn Points Won
45%
(
42 of
93)
97
Total Points Won
102
|
||||
Stats Breakdown Vs All H2H Opponents
| stats | Hazem Naow | Timo Stodder |
|---|---|---|
| YTD W/L | 76% (26/8) | 36% (4/7) |
| Sets Win/Loss | 70% (54/23) | 36% (9/16) |
| Games Win/Loss | 57% (407/308) | 45% (109/135) |
| Hard Win/Loss | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Clay Win/Loss | 78% (7/2) | 44% (4/5) |
| Indoor Hard W/L | 76% (19/6) | 0% (0/2) |
| Grass Win/Loss | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Aces pg | 0.21 | 0.29 |
| Aces Total | 75 | 34 |
| DFs per game | 0.35 | 0.25 |
| DFs Total | 123 | 30 |
| Avg Match Time | 1:38:21 | 1:38:46 |
| Avg Opp Rank | 229.18 | 81.18 |
| 1st Serve % | 63% (1484/2347) | 62% (490/791) |
| 1st Serve W% | 70% (1043/1484) | 61% (300/490) |
| 2nd Serve W% | 50% (429/863) | 46% (139/301) |
| BPs Won% Total | 44% (119/273) | 53% (31/59) |
| Return Pts W% | 43% (999/2323) | 39% (310/792) |
| 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% (0/1) | 0% (0/1) |
| Tour Finals W/L | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Challenger W/L | 78% (14/4) | 29% (2/5) |
| Futures W/L | 80% (12/3) | 67% (2/1) |
| Best of 3 Sets W% | 76% (26/34) | 40% (4/10) |
| Best of 5 Sets W% | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/1) |
| TBs Win% (Total) | 57% (4/7) | 50% (3/6) |
| Deciding Set W% | 78% (7/9) | 100% (2/2) |
| 1st set W, W | 100% (22/22) | 75% (4/3) |
| 1st set W, L | 0% (22/0) | 25% (4/1) |
| 1st set L, W | 33% (12/4) | 14% (7/1) |
Hazem Naow Recent Matches Played
Before:
| opponent | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 |
Stats
Henri Squire
Player
Hazem Naow
58%
(
28 of
48)
1st Serve %
59%
(
24 of
41)
5
Aces
0
1
Double Faults
2
82%
(
23 of
28)
1st Serve Won
46%
(
11 of
24)
45%
(
9 of
20)
2nd Serve Won
35%
(
6 of
17)
83%
(
5 of
6)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
3)
33%
(
16 of
48)
Rtn Points Won
59%
(
24 of
41)
56
Total Points Won
33
|
6-1 6-1 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Buvaysar Gadamauri
Player
Hazem Naow
66%
(
66 of
100)
1st Serve %
67%
(
51 of
76)
5
Aces
2
2
Double Faults
4
64%
(
42 of
66)
1st Serve Won
73%
(
37 of
51)
56%
(
19 of
34)
2nd Serve Won
44%
(
11 of
25)
57%
(
4 of
7)
Break Points Won
15%
(
2 of
13)
39%
(
39 of
100)
Rtn Points Won
37%
(
28 of
76)
89
Total Points Won
87
|
6-4 3-6 6-1 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Hazem Naow
Player
Mae Malige
66%
(
31 of
47)
1st Serve %
36%
(
15 of
42)
0
Aces
1
0
Double Faults
3
81%
(
25 of
31)
1st Serve Won
40%
(
6 of
15)
56%
(
9 of
16)
2nd Serve Won
44%
(
12 of
27)
63%
(
5 of
8)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
2)
28%
(
13 of
47)
Rtn Points Won
57%
(
24 of
42)
58
Total Points Won
31
|
6-1 6-1 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Hazem Naow
Player
Dario Huber
63%
(
64 of
102)
1st Serve %
56%
(
53 of
95)
3
Aces
3
5
Double Faults
6
72%
(
46 of
64)
1st Serve Won
74%
(
39 of
53)
47%
(
18 of
38)
2nd Serve Won
33%
(
14 of
42)
42%
(
5 of
12)
Break Points Won
23%
(
3 of
13)
37%
(
38 of
102)
Rtn Points Won
44%
(
42 of
95)
106
Total Points Won
91
|
4-6 6-1 7-5 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Gregoire Barrere
Player
Hazem Naow
63%
(
31 of
49)
1st Serve %
74%
(
32 of
43)
3
Aces
2
0
Double Faults
3
68%
(
21 of
31)
1st Serve Won
63%
(
20 of
32)
56%
(
10 of
18)
2nd Serve Won
36%
(
4 of
11)
75%
(
3 of
4)
Break Points Won
25%
(
1 of
4)
37%
(
18 of
49)
Rtn Points Won
44%
(
19 of
43)
50
Total Points Won
42
|
7-5 2-1 ret. | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Hazem Naow
Player
Michael Geerts
66%
(
69 of
105)
1st Serve %
66%
(
64 of
97)
8
Aces
11
7
Double Faults
2
75%
(
52 of
69)
1st Serve Won
72%
(
46 of
64)
50%
(
18 of
36)
2nd Serve Won
48%
(
16 of
33)
60%
(
3 of
5)
Break Points Won
20%
(
2 of
10)
33%
(
35 of
105)
Rtn Points Won
36%
(
35 of
97)
105
Total Points Won
97
|
4-6 6-4 7-5 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Hazem Naow
Player
Eliakim Coulibaly
63%
(
37 of
59)
1st Serve %
75%
(
41 of
55)
4
Aces
7
4
Double Faults
1
78%
(
29 of
37)
1st Serve Won
73%
(
30 of
41)
55%
(
12 of
22)
2nd Serve Won
29%
(
4 of
14)
38%
(
3 of
8)
Break Points Won
50%
(
1 of
2)
31%
(
18 of
59)
Rtn Points Won
38%
(
21 of
55)
62
Total Points Won
52
|
6-3 6-4 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Hazem Naow
Player
Cyril Vandermeersch
63%
(
51 of
81)
1st Serve %
56%
(
34 of
61)
1
Aces
2
4
Double Faults
0
69%
(
35 of
51)
1st Serve Won
68%
(
23 of
34)
47%
(
14 of
30)
2nd Serve Won
37%
(
10 of
27)
57%
(
4 of
7)
Break Points Won
33%
(
2 of
6)
40%
(
32 of
81)
Rtn Points Won
46%
(
28 of
61)
77
Total Points Won
65
|
7-5 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Lucas Pouille
Player
Hazem Naow
65%
(
31 of
48)
1st Serve %
64%
(
34 of
53)
13
Aces
2
2
Double Faults
0
94%
(
29 of
31)
1st Serve Won
65%
(
22 of
34)
47%
(
8 of
17)
2nd Serve Won
47%
(
9 of
19)
100%
(
3 of
3)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
23%
(
11 of
48)
Rtn Points Won
42%
(
22 of
53)
59
Total Points Won
42
|
6-4 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Hazem Naow
Player
Arthur Rinderknech
55%
(
72 of
130)
1st Serve %
72%
(
73 of
102)
4
Aces
16
6
Double Faults
0
72%
(
52 of
72)
1st Serve Won
67%
(
49 of
73)
53%
(
31 of
58)
2nd Serve Won
55%
(
16 of
29)
43%
(
3 of
7)
Break Points Won
8%
(
1 of
12)
36%
(
47 of
130)
Rtn Points Won
36%
(
37 of
102)
120
Total Points Won
112
|
7-6(2) 6-7(3) 6-2 | H2H | ||
view more
Timo Stodder Recent Matches Played
Before:
| opponent | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QF |
Stats
Luka Pavlovic
Player
Timo Stodder
61%
(
46 of
76)
1st Serve %
64%
(
49 of
76)
11
Aces
2
2
Double Faults
4
85%
(
39 of
46)
1st Serve Won
67%
(
33 of
49)
50%
(
15 of
30)
2nd Serve Won
37%
(
10 of
27)
63%
(
5 of
8)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
1)
29%
(
22 of
76)
Rtn Points Won
43%
(
33 of
76)
87
Total Points Won
65
|
6-7(2) 6-1 5-0 ret. | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Timo Stodder
Player
Denis Petak
75%
(
67 of
89)
1st Serve %
60%
(
65 of
108)
1
Aces
5
0
Double Faults
14
51%
(
34 of
67)
1st Serve Won
68%
(
44 of
65)
59%
(
13 of
22)
2nd Serve Won
35%
(
15 of
43)
42%
(
5 of
12)
Break Points Won
75%
(
6 of
8)
47%
(
42 of
89)
Rtn Points Won
45%
(
49 of
108)
96
Total Points Won
101
|
1-6 6-3 7-6(5) | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Timo Stodder
Player
Marko Maksimovic
76%
(
41 of
54)
1st Serve %
51%
(
32 of
63)
1
Aces
0
0
Double Faults
3
71%
(
29 of
41)
1st Serve Won
53%
(
17 of
32)
46%
(
6 of
13)
2nd Serve Won
39%
(
12 of
31)
63%
(
5 of
8)
Break Points Won
14%
(
1 of
7)
35%
(
19 of
54)
Rtn Points Won
54%
(
34 of
63)
69
Total Points Won
48
|
6-3 6-1 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Tibo Colson
Player
Timo Stodder
67%
(
38 of
57)
1st Serve %
57%
(
36 of
63)
14
Aces
3
1
Double Faults
5
82%
(
31 of
38)
1st Serve Won
69%
(
25 of
36)
74%
(
14 of
19)
2nd Serve Won
48%
(
13 of
27)
40%
(
2 of
5)
Break Points Won
100%
(
1 of
1)
21%
(
12 of
57)
Rtn Points Won
40%
(
25 of
63)
70
Total Points Won
50
|
7-6(0) 6-3 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Steve Johnson
Player
Timo Stodder
61%
(
28 of
46)
1st Serve %
54%
(
32 of
59)
8
Aces
6
1
Double Faults
1
89%
(
25 of
28)
1st Serve Won
66%
(
21 of
32)
61%
(
11 of
18)
2nd Serve Won
48%
(
13 of
27)
33%
(
3 of
9)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
22%
(
10 of
46)
Rtn Points Won
42%
(
25 of
59)
61
Total Points Won
44
|
6-4 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Kilian Feldbausch
Player
Timo Stodder
63%
(
45 of
71)
1st Serve %
54%
(
36 of
67)
2
Aces
3
5
Double Faults
1
64%
(
29 of
45)
1st Serve Won
53%
(
19 of
36)
46%
(
12 of
26)
2nd Serve Won
39%
(
12 of
31)
55%
(
6 of
11)
Break Points Won
67%
(
4 of
6)
42%
(
30 of
71)
Rtn Points Won
54%
(
36 of
67)
77
Total Points Won
61
|
7-6(3) 6-1 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Timo Stodder
Player
Juan Pablo Ficovich
49%
(
63 of
129)
1st Serve %
48%
(
48 of
101)
10
Aces
6
11
Double Faults
4
70%
(
44 of
63)
1st Serve Won
67%
(
32 of
48)
44%
(
29 of
66)
2nd Serve Won
49%
(
26 of
53)
60%
(
6 of
10)
Break Points Won
31%
(
5 of
16)
43%
(
56 of
129)
Rtn Points Won
43%
(
43 of
101)
116
Total Points Won
114
|
7-5 5-7 6-4 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Gerard Campana Lee
Player
Timo Stodder
63%
(
43 of
68)
1st Serve %
69%
(
46 of
67)
2
Aces
6
1
Double Faults
2
65%
(
28 of
43)
1st Serve Won
63%
(
29 of
46)
64%
(
16 of
25)
2nd Serve Won
43%
(
9 of
21)
60%
(
3 of
5)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
5)
35%
(
24 of
68)
Rtn Points Won
43%
(
29 of
67)
73
Total Points Won
62
|
6-4 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Facundo Bagnis
Player
Timo Stodder
69%
(
37 of
54)
1st Serve %
63%
(
32 of
51)
6
Aces
1
0
Double Faults
4
70%
(
26 of
37)
1st Serve Won
47%
(
15 of
32)
35%
(
6 of
17)
2nd Serve Won
42%
(
8 of
19)
56%
(
5 of
9)
Break Points Won
100%
(
2 of
2)
41%
(
22 of
54)
Rtn Points Won
55%
(
28 of
51)
60
Total Points Won
45
|
6-2 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Dmitry Popko
Player
Timo Stodder
43%
(
32 of
74)
1st Serve %
58%
(
44 of
76)
4
Aces
0
1
Double Faults
0
81%
(
26 of
32)
1st Serve Won
52%
(
23 of
44)
48%
(
20 of
42)
2nd Serve Won
56%
(
18 of
32)
57%
(
4 of
7)
Break Points Won
50%
(
3 of
6)
38%
(
28 of
74)
Rtn Points Won
46%
(
35 of
76)
81
Total Points Won
69
|
7-6(7) 6-4 | H2H | ||
view more
Naow Vs Stodder 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 support@matchstat.com
