Predictions
Matches
Calendar
H2H
Rankings
Picks Blog
Liam Broady vs Cem Ilkel 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 Broady vs Ilkel analysis and find out who is favored!
Liam Broady vs Cem Ilkel Important H2H Prediction Stats:
- Second serve performance recent form: In recent form (last 6 months), Broady has won 48.45% of points on his second serve, while Ilkel has won 47.74%. There is a high correlation between this stat and match prediction accuracy.
- Return game stats recent form: Return stats show Broady, in recent form, has won 51.95% of his opponent's second serve points, while Ilkel has won 51.79%. The same stats for first serve returns are 30.15% and 25.31% respectively and this has a high correlation to pick who is favored in this H2H matchup.
- Under pressure analysis: Broady has saved 61.22% of breakpoints in recent form, whereas Ilkel has saved 53.85% which is a useful statistic for in-game betting predictions.
- Performance overview: Over the last year Broady has won 54.55% of matches played (W/L 30/ 25), with Ilkel winning 39.58% (W/L 19/ 29) that gives us an overall head-to head prediction overview.
- Best surface: Broady has their best career surface win % on Hard, winning 63% (W/L 249/ 146), and worse career win % on Grass, winning 37% (W/L 32/ 55). Ilkel has their best career surface win % on Hard, winning 61% (W/L 254/ 162), and worse career win % on Grass, winning 10% (W/L 1/ 9).
- Player level: In the last year, Broady has played most of their matches on the Challengers/ITF tournaments > $10K, winning 56.67% of matches (W/L 17/ 13), where as Ilkel has played most of their matches on the Challengers/ITF tournaments > $10K, winning 37.5% of matches (W/L 12/ 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 2 times before with Broady winning 1 times. They have played 5 sets in total, with Broady winning 3 and Ilkel winning 2. The last match between Broady and Ilkel was at the Bergamo Challenger, 05-11-2021, Quarterfinals, I.hard with Cem Ilkel getting the victory .
- Head to head match duration: In past head to head matches, the average match time between these players has been 1:53:48.
- Deciding set H2H prediction: Broady and Ilkel have played a deciding set 1 times, with Broady winning 0 times and Ilkel 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 Broady winning 1, and Ilkel 0.
- Opponent quality stats: Over the last 12 months, Broady has played against opponents with an average rank of 286.78 while Ilkel has played against players with an average rank of 236.83.
- Deciding set performance vs all players: If you are interested in live predictions and betting, if this match goes into a deciding set, Broady has won 47% of deciding sets over the last 12 months, while Ilkel has won 50% in all matches played on tour.
- Break point conversion: In recent form, Broady has converted 43.18% of breakpoint opportunities, and Ilkel has converted 44.76% 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: Broady 1 - 1 Ilkel
149
Rank
93
High
30
Age
L
Plays
1
Total1
1
Hard0
0
Clay0
0
Indoor1
0
Grass0
415
Rank
144
High
28
Age
R
Plays
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
Form
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
58% (470-343)
Career Total W/L
56% (400-309)
50% (5-5)
YTD W/L
44% (8-10)
$1,004,050
Career Prize Money
$225,530
0
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 | Liam Broady | Cem Ilkel |
|---|---|---|
| All H2H Matches | 1 | 1 |
| Sets Won | 3 | 2 |
| Games Won | 25 | 26 |
| Aces (Total) | 10 | 10 |
| DFs (Total) | 8 | 8 |
| Avg Match Time | 1:53:48 | 1:53:48 |
| 1st Serve % | 65% (106/163) | 60% (99/166) |
| 1st Serve Win% | 75% (79/106) | 74% (73/99) |
| 2nd Serve Win% | 47% (27/57) | 46% (31/67) |
| BPs Won% (Total) | 36% (4/11) | 50% (5/10) |
| Return Points W% | 37% (62/166) | 35% (57/163) |
| Best of 3 Sets W% | 50% (1/2) | 50% (1/2) |
| 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 | 100% (1/1) | 100% (1/1) |
| 1st set W, L | 0% (1/0) | 0% (1/0) |
| 1st set L, W | 0% (1/0) | 0% (1/0) |
| Winning Player | Losing Player | Score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7-5 3-6 6-1 |
Stats 
Cem Ilkel
Player
Liam Broady
62%
(
52 of
84)
1st Serve %
60%
(
56 of
94)
7
Aces
7
2
Double Faults
6
75%
(
39 of
52)
1st Serve Won
77%
(
43 of
56)
56%
(
18 of
32)
2nd Serve Won
39%
(
15 of
38)
44%
(
4 of
9)
Break Points Won
50%
(
2 of
4)
32%
(
27 of
84)
Rtn Points Won
38%
(
36 of
94)
93
Total Points Won
85
|
||||
| 7-6(3) 6-4 |
Stats
Liam Broady
Player
Cem Ilkel
72%
(
50 of
69)
1st Serve %
57%
(
47 of
82)
3
Aces
3
2
Double Faults
6
72%
(
36 of
50)
1st Serve Won
72%
(
34 of
47)
63%
(
12 of
19)
2nd Serve Won
37%
(
13 of
35)
29%
(
2 of
7)
Break Points Won
100%
(
1 of
1)
30%
(
21 of
69)
Rtn Points Won
43%
(
35 of
82)
83
Total Points Won
68
|
||||
Stats Breakdown Vs All H2H Opponents
| stats | Liam Broady | Cem Ilkel |
|---|---|---|
| YTD W/L | 50% (5/5) | 44% (8/10) |
| Sets Win/Loss | 55% (12/10) | 43% (17/23) |
| Games Win/Loss | 52% (101/93) | 46% (165/195) |
| Hard Win/Loss | 50% (5/5) | 43% (3/4) |
| Clay Win/Loss | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Indoor Hard W/L | 0% (0/0) | 45% (5/6) |
| Grass Win/Loss | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Aces pg | 0.34 | 0.54 |
| Aces Total | 32 | 94 |
| DFs per game | 0.4 | 0.24 |
| DFs Total | 38 | 42 |
| Avg Match Time | 1:34:24 | 1:28:14 |
| Avg Opp Rank | 207.9 | 162.39 |
| 1st Serve % | 60% (373/619) | 57% (616/1073) |
| 1st Serve W% | 71% (263/373) | 72% (442/616) |
| 2nd Serve W% | 49% (121/246) | 46% (210/457) |
| BPs Won% Total | 41% (27/66) | 43% (32/74) |
| Return Pts W% | 40% (249/626) | 36% (378/1044) |
| Slam W/L | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Masters W/L | 50% (1/1) | 0% (0/0) |
| Cups W/L | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/1) |
| Main Tour W/L | 50% (3/3) | 0% (0/0) |
| Tour Finals W/L | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Challenger W/L | 50% (1/1) | 50% (7/7) |
| Futures W/L | 0% (0/0) | 33% (1/2) |
| Best of 3 Sets W% | 50% (5/10) | 41% (7/17) |
| Best of 5 Sets W% | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| TBs Win% (Total) | 50% (1/2) | 80% (4/5) |
| Deciding Set W% | 0% (0/2) | 60% (3/5) |
| 1st set W, W | 83% (6/5) | 75% (8/6) |
| 1st set W, L | 17% (6/1) | 25% (8/2) |
| 1st set L, W | 0% (4/0) | 20% (10/2) |
Liam Broady Recent Matches Played
Before:
| opponent | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QF |
Stats
Adam Walton
Player
Liam Broady
56%
(
54 of
96)
1st Serve %
61%
(
52 of
85)
7
Aces
5
1
Double Faults
7
76%
(
41 of
54)
1st Serve Won
63%
(
33 of
52)
57%
(
24 of
42)
2nd Serve Won
58%
(
19 of
33)
67%
(
4 of
6)
Break Points Won
17%
(
1 of
6)
32%
(
31 of
96)
Rtn Points Won
39%
(
33 of
85)
98
Total Points Won
83
|
6-7(1) 6-2 6-3 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Liam Broady
Player
Maxwell Mckennon
60%
(
34 of
57)
1st Serve %
51%
(
23 of
45)
8
Aces
1
3
Double Faults
2
88%
(
30 of
34)
1st Serve Won
65%
(
15 of
23)
48%
(
11 of
23)
2nd Serve Won
41%
(
9 of
22)
100%
(
3 of
3)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
4)
28%
(
16 of
57)
Rtn Points Won
47%
(
21 of
45)
62
Total Points Won
40
|
6-3 6-2 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Thiago Seyboth Wild
Player
Liam Broady
55%
(
21 of
38)
1st Serve %
58%
(
23 of
40)
4
Aces
0
2
Double Faults
2
76%
(
16 of
21)
1st Serve Won
48%
(
11 of
23)
76%
(
13 of
17)
2nd Serve Won
24%
(
4 of
17)
45%
(
5 of
11)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
1)
24%
(
9 of
38)
Rtn Points Won
63%
(
25 of
40)
54
Total Points Won
24
|
6-1 6-1 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Liam Broady
Player
Marc Polmans
43%
(
22 of
51)
1st Serve %
60%
(
36 of
60)
5
Aces
1
5
Double Faults
6
86%
(
19 of
22)
1st Serve Won
64%
(
23 of
36)
41%
(
12 of
29)
2nd Serve Won
25%
(
6 of
24)
40%
(
6 of
15)
Break Points Won
67%
(
2 of
3)
39%
(
20 of
51)
Rtn Points Won
52%
(
31 of
60)
62
Total Points Won
49
|
6-3 6-2 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Constant Lestienne
Player
Liam Broady
49%
(
30 of
61)
1st Serve %
52%
(
33 of
64)
7
Aces
1
2
Double Faults
7
87%
(
26 of
30)
1st Serve Won
73%
(
24 of
33)
52%
(
16 of
31)
2nd Serve Won
48%
(
15 of
31)
30%
(
3 of
10)
Break Points Won
25%
(
1 of
4)
31%
(
19 of
61)
Rtn Points Won
39%
(
25 of
64)
67
Total Points Won
58
|
6-4 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Rinky Hijikata
Player
Liam Broady
56%
(
48 of
85)
1st Serve %
59%
(
50 of
85)
9
Aces
4
5
Double Faults
4
71%
(
34 of
48)
1st Serve Won
52%
(
26 of
50)
49%
(
18 of
37)
2nd Serve Won
57%
(
20 of
35)
24%
(
4 of
17)
Break Points Won
18%
(
2 of
11)
39%
(
33 of
85)
Rtn Points Won
46%
(
39 of
85)
91
Total Points Won
79
|
6-2 1-6 6-1 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Andrey Rublev
Player
Liam Broady
55%
(
38 of
69)
1st Serve %
68%
(
62 of
91)
10
Aces
4
3
Double Faults
2
82%
(
31 of
38)
1st Serve Won
69%
(
43 of
62)
58%
(
18 of
31)
2nd Serve Won
34%
(
10 of
29)
30%
(
3 of
10)
Break Points Won
67%
(
2 of
3)
29%
(
20 of
69)
Rtn Points Won
42%
(
38 of
91)
87
Total Points Won
73
|
6-4 7-6(8) | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Liam Broady
Player
Pedro Cachin
63%
(
29 of
46)
1st Serve %
71%
(
30 of
42)
2
Aces
1
2
Double Faults
1
72%
(
21 of
29)
1st Serve Won
43%
(
13 of
30)
65%
(
11 of
17)
2nd Serve Won
42%
(
5 of
12)
71%
(
5 of
7)
Break Points Won
33%
(
1 of
3)
30%
(
14 of
46)
Rtn Points Won
57%
(
24 of
42)
56
Total Points Won
32
|
6-4 6-0 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Liam Broady
Player
Roman Andres Burruchaga
64%
(
28 of
44)
1st Serve %
54%
(
39 of
72)
2
Aces
1
3
Double Faults
3
89%
(
25 of
28)
1st Serve Won
56%
(
22 of
39)
75%
(
12 of
16)
2nd Serve Won
48%
(
16 of
33)
43%
(
3 of
7)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
16%
(
7 of
44)
Rtn Points Won
47%
(
34 of
72)
71
Total Points Won
45
|
6-2 6-3 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Liam Broady
Player
Aziz Dougaz
71%
(
40 of
56)
1st Serve %
50%
(
29 of
58)
1
Aces
3
3
Double Faults
3
78%
(
31 of
40)
1st Serve Won
69%
(
20 of
29)
44%
(
7 of
16)
2nd Serve Won
38%
(
11 of
29)
44%
(
4 of
9)
Break Points Won
25%
(
1 of
4)
32%
(
18 of
56)
Rtn Points Won
47%
(
27 of
58)
65
Total Points Won
49
|
6-3 6-3 | H2H | ||
view more
Cem Ilkel Recent Matches Played
Before:
| opponent | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 |
Stats
Matthew Hulme
Player
Cem Ilkel
71%
(
50 of
70)
1st Serve %
66%
(
49 of
74)
11
Aces
5
1
Double Faults
2
74%
(
37 of
50)
1st Serve Won
69%
(
34 of
49)
50%
(
10 of
20)
2nd Serve Won
44%
(
11 of
25)
75%
(
3 of
4)
Break Points Won
29%
(
2 of
7)
33%
(
23 of
70)
Rtn Points Won
39%
(
29 of
74)
76
Total Points Won
68
|
1-6 6-3 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Petr Nesterov
Player
Cem Ilkel
71%
(
36 of
51)
1st Serve %
51%
(
23 of
45)
9
Aces
4
0
Double Faults
3
81%
(
29 of
36)
1st Serve Won
74%
(
17 of
23)
67%
(
10 of
15)
2nd Serve Won
45%
(
10 of
22)
60%
(
3 of
5)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
2)
24%
(
12 of
51)
Rtn Points Won
40%
(
18 of
45)
57
Total Points Won
39
|
6-3 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Cem Ilkel
Player
Yousef Khamis
47%
(
34 of
72)
1st Serve %
61%
(
39 of
64)
9
Aces
9
8
Double Faults
5
82%
(
28 of
34)
1st Serve Won
69%
(
27 of
39)
50%
(
19 of
38)
2nd Serve Won
48%
(
12 of
25)
100%
(
3 of
3)
Break Points Won
40%
(
2 of
5)
35%
(
25 of
72)
Rtn Points Won
39%
(
25 of
64)
72
Total Points Won
64
|
6-4 7-6(4) | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Michael Agwi
Player
Cem Ilkel
64%
(
28 of
44)
1st Serve %
48%
(
19 of
40)
5
Aces
1
2
Double Faults
1
75%
(
21 of
28)
1st Serve Won
47%
(
9 of
19)
63%
(
10 of
16)
2nd Serve Won
33%
(
7 of
21)
71%
(
5 of
7)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
1)
30%
(
13 of
44)
Rtn Points Won
60%
(
24 of
40)
55
Total Points Won
29
|
6-0 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Otto Virtanen
Player
Cem Ilkel
62%
(
21 of
34)
1st Serve %
60%
(
28 of
47)
11
Aces
1
6
Double Faults
3
100%
(
21 of
21)
1st Serve Won
54%
(
15 of
28)
38%
(
5 of
13)
2nd Serve Won
21%
(
4 of
19)
60%
(
6 of
10)
Break Points Won
100%
(
1 of
1)
24%
(
8 of
34)
Rtn Points Won
60%
(
28 of
47)
54
Total Points Won
27
|
6-2 6-1 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Cem Ilkel
Player
Johan Nikles
51%
(
25 of
49)
1st Serve %
54%
(
30 of
56)
2
Aces
0
3
Double Faults
5
68%
(
17 of
25)
1st Serve Won
53%
(
16 of
30)
54%
(
13 of
24)
2nd Serve Won
23%
(
6 of
26)
46%
(
6 of
13)
Break Points Won
50%
(
2 of
4)
39%
(
19 of
49)
Rtn Points Won
61%
(
34 of
56)
64
Total Points Won
41
|
6-0 6-3 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Cem Ilkel
Player
Illya Marchenko
61%
(
46 of
76)
1st Serve %
59%
(
53 of
90)
10
Aces
7
1
Double Faults
3
76%
(
35 of
46)
1st Serve Won
74%
(
39 of
53)
60%
(
18 of
30)
2nd Serve Won
46%
(
17 of
37)
33%
(
1 of
3)
Break Points Won
33%
(
1 of
3)
30%
(
23 of
76)
Rtn Points Won
38%
(
34 of
90)
87
Total Points Won
79
|
7-6(6) 7-6(2) | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Cem Ilkel
Player
Kyle Edmund
55%
(
56 of
102)
1st Serve %
55%
(
54 of
98)
12
Aces
3
6
Double Faults
5
80%
(
45 of
56)
1st Serve Won
70%
(
38 of
54)
41%
(
19 of
46)
2nd Serve Won
48%
(
21 of
44)
43%
(
3 of
7)
Break Points Won
25%
(
3 of
12)
37%
(
38 of
102)
Rtn Points Won
40%
(
39 of
98)
103
Total Points Won
97
|
3-6 7-6(5) 6-2 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Arthur Bouquier
Player
Cem Ilkel
71%
(
40 of
56)
1st Serve %
59%
(
42 of
71)
13
Aces
4
3
Double Faults
2
88%
(
35 of
40)
1st Serve Won
67%
(
28 of
42)
50%
(
8 of
16)
2nd Serve Won
55%
(
16 of
29)
33%
(
2 of
6)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
2)
23%
(
13 of
56)
Rtn Points Won
38%
(
27 of
71)
70
Total Points Won
57
|
6-4 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Gastao Elias
Player
Cem Ilkel
60%
(
62 of
103)
1st Serve %
60%
(
52 of
87)
6
Aces
8
1
Double Faults
2
66%
(
41 of
62)
1st Serve Won
73%
(
38 of
52)
49%
(
20 of
41)
2nd Serve Won
37%
(
13 of
35)
45%
(
5 of
11)
Break Points Won
57%
(
4 of
7)
41%
(
42 of
103)
Rtn Points Won
41%
(
36 of
87)
97
Total Points Won
93
|
3-6 6-1 7-6(6) | H2H | ||
view more
Broady Vs Ilkel 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
