Predictions
Matches
Calendar
H2H
Rankings
Picks Blog
Nerman Fatic vs Sumit Nagal 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 Fatic vs Nagal analysis and find out who is favored!
Nerman Fatic vs Sumit Nagal Important H2H Prediction Stats:
- Second serve performance recent form: In recent form (last 6 months), Fatic has won 47.71% of points on his second serve, while Nagal has won 55.61%. There is a high correlation between this stat and match prediction accuracy.
- Return game stats recent form: Return stats show Fatic, in recent form, has won 47.19% of his opponent's second serve points, while Nagal has won 54.03%. The same stats for first serve returns are 36.27% and 32.87% respectively and this has a high correlation to pick who is favored in this H2H matchup.
- Under pressure analysis: Fatic has saved 57.79% of breakpoints in recent form, whereas Nagal has saved 64.63% which is a useful statistic for in-game betting predictions.
- Performance overview: Over the last year Fatic has won 53.62% of matches played (W/L 37/ 32), with Nagal winning 64.71% (W/L 55/ 30) that gives us an overall head-to head prediction overview.
- Best surface: Fatic has their best career surface win % on Clay, winning 60% (W/L 279/ 189), and worse career win % on Grass, winning 0% (W/L 0/ 1). Nagal has their best career surface win % on Clay, winning 63% (W/L 214/ 124), and worse career win % on Grass, winning 0% (W/L 0/ 1).
- Player level: In the last year, Fatic has played most of their matches on the Challengers/ITF tournaments > $10K, winning 50% of matches (W/L 24/ 24), where as Nagal has played most of their matches on the Challengers/ITF tournaments > $10K, winning 68.75% of matches (W/L 44/ 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 Fatic winning 1 times. They have played 3 sets in total, with Fatic winning 2 and Nagal winning 1. The last match between Fatic and Nagal was at the Zadar Challenger, 26-03-2021, Quarterfinals, Clay with Nerman Fatic getting the victory .
- Head to head match duration: In past head to head matches, the average match time between these players has been 2:26:1.
- Deciding set H2H prediction: Fatic and Nagal have played a deciding set 1 times, with Fatic winning 1 times and Nagal 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 Fatic winning 0, and Nagal 0.
- Opponent quality stats: Over the last 12 months, Fatic has played against opponents with an average rank of 273.91 while Nagal has played against players with an average rank of 284.86.
- Deciding set performance vs all players: If you are interested in live predictions and betting, if this match goes into a deciding set, Fatic has won 48% of deciding sets over the last 12 months, while Nagal has won 46% in all matches played on tour.
- Break point conversion: In recent form, Fatic has converted 40.47% of breakpoint opportunities, and Nagal has converted 47.19% 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: Fatic 1 - 0 Nagal
212
Rank
191
High
29
Age
R
Plays
1
Total0
0
Hard0
1
Clay0
0
Indoor0
0
Grass0
80
Rank
80
High
26
Age
R
Plays
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
Form
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
57% (339-252)
Career Total W/L
61% (317-204)
40% (6-9)
YTD W/L
64% (18-10)
$73,995
Career Prize Money
$434,190
0
YTD Titles
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.
| stats | Nerman Fatic | Sumit Nagal |
|---|---|---|
| All H2H Matches | 1 | 0 |
| Sets Won | 2 | 1 |
| Games Won | 18 | 15 |
| Aces (Total) | 8 | 1 |
| DFs (Total) | 5 | 2 |
| Avg Match Time | 2:26:1 | 2:26:1 |
| 1st Serve % | 62% (68/110) | 70% (65/93) |
| 1st Serve Win% | 72% (49/68) | 58% (38/65) |
| 2nd Serve Win% | 43% (18/42) | 50% (14/28) |
| BPs Won% (Total) | 60% (6/10) | 50% (5/10) |
| Return Points W% | 44% (41/93) | 39% (43/110) |
| 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 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5-7 6-3 7-5 |
Stats 
Nerman Fatic
Player
Sumit Nagal
62%
(
68 of
110)
1st Serve %
70%
(
65 of
93)
8
Aces
1
5
Double Faults
2
72%
(
49 of
68)
1st Serve Won
58%
(
38 of
65)
43%
(
18 of
42)
2nd Serve Won
50%
(
14 of
28)
60%
(
6 of
10)
Break Points Won
50%
(
5 of
10)
39%
(
43 of
110)
Rtn Points Won
44%
(
41 of
93)
108
Total Points Won
95
|
||||
Stats Breakdown Vs All H2H Opponents
| stats | Nerman Fatic | Sumit Nagal |
|---|---|---|
| YTD W/L | 40% (6/9) | 64% (18/10) |
| Sets Win/Loss | 43% (15/20) | 65% (44/24) |
| Games Win/Loss | 46% (150/179) | 55% (359/288) |
| Hard Win/Loss | 50% (3/3) | 64% (14/8) |
| Clay Win/Loss | 25% (2/6) | 67% (4/2) |
| Indoor Hard W/L | 100% (1/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Grass Win/Loss | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Aces pg | 0.43 | 0.17 |
| Aces Total | 70 | 55 |
| DFs per game | 0.2 | 0.12 |
| DFs Total | 33 | 38 |
| Avg Match Time | 1:33:7 | 1:56:56 |
| Avg Opp Rank | 347.27 | 214.64 |
| 1st Serve % | 62% (574/926) | 70% (1475/2097) |
| 1st Serve W% | 68% (393/574) | 67% (992/1475) |
| 2nd Serve W% | 47% (167/352) | 56% (347/622) |
| BPs Won% Total | 33% (27/81) | 48% (93/193) |
| Return Pts W% | 37% (360/982) | 40% (820/2042) |
| Slam W/L | 50% (1/1) | 80% (4/1) |
| Masters W/L | 0% (0/0) | 50% (4/4) |
| Cups W/L | 100% (1/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Main Tour W/L | 50% (1/1) | 33% (1/2) |
| Tour Finals W/L | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Challenger W/L | 30% (3/7) | 75% (9/3) |
| Futures W/L | 0% (0/0) | 0% (0/0) |
| Best of 3 Sets W% | 40% (6/15) | 65% (17/26) |
| Best of 5 Sets W% | 0% (0/0) | 50% (1/2) |
| TBs Win% (Total) | 60% (3/5) | 60% (3/5) |
| Deciding Set W% | 40% (2/5) | 33% (3/9) |
| 1st set W, W | 71% (7/5) | 76% (21/16) |
| 1st set W, L | 29% (7/2) | 24% (21/5) |
| 1st set L, W | 13% (8/1) | 29% (7/2) |
Nerman Fatic Recent Matches Played
Before:
| opponent | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QF |
Stats
Alejandro Moro Canas
Player
Nerman Fatic
72%
(
39 of
54)
1st Serve %
59%
(
33 of
56)
2
Aces
4
2
Double Faults
4
72%
(
28 of
39)
1st Serve Won
61%
(
20 of
33)
53%
(
8 of
15)
2nd Serve Won
39%
(
9 of
23)
44%
(
4 of
9)
Break Points Won
50%
(
1 of
2)
33%
(
18 of
54)
Rtn Points Won
48%
(
27 of
56)
63
Total Points Won
47
|
6-4 6-2 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Nerman Fatic
Player
Edoardo Lavagno
75%
(
39 of
52)
1st Serve %
64%
(
36 of
56)
1
Aces
0
0
Double Faults
4
74%
(
29 of
39)
1st Serve Won
58%
(
21 of
36)
69%
(
9 of
13)
2nd Serve Won
60%
(
12 of
20)
38%
(
3 of
8)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
3)
27%
(
14 of
52)
Rtn Points Won
41%
(
23 of
56)
61
Total Points Won
47
|
6-4 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Zsombor Piros
Player
Nerman Fatic
73%
(
57 of
78)
1st Serve %
56%
(
48 of
85)
5
Aces
2
4
Double Faults
2
70%
(
40 of
57)
1st Serve Won
54%
(
26 of
48)
38%
(
8 of
21)
2nd Serve Won
49%
(
18 of
37)
46%
(
6 of
13)
Break Points Won
38%
(
3 of
8)
38%
(
30 of
78)
Rtn Points Won
48%
(
41 of
85)
89
Total Points Won
74
|
4-6 6-3 6-1 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Riccardo Bonadio
Player
Nerman Fatic
63%
(
40 of
64)
1st Serve %
58%
(
29 of
50)
1
Aces
2
2
Double Faults
2
55%
(
22 of
40)
1st Serve Won
48%
(
14 of
29)
54%
(
13 of
24)
2nd Serve Won
29%
(
6 of
21)
60%
(
6 of
10)
Break Points Won
33%
(
3 of
9)
45%
(
29 of
64)
Rtn Points Won
60%
(
30 of
50)
65
Total Points Won
49
|
6-2 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Ugo Blanchet
Player
Nerman Fatic
59%
(
42 of
71)
1st Serve %
63%
(
32 of
51)
2
Aces
3
1
Double Faults
1
67%
(
28 of
42)
1st Serve Won
69%
(
22 of
32)
62%
(
18 of
29)
2nd Serve Won
42%
(
8 of
19)
75%
(
3 of
4)
Break Points Won
20%
(
1 of
5)
35%
(
25 of
71)
Rtn Points Won
41%
(
21 of
51)
67
Total Points Won
55
|
6-3 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Dimitar Kuzmanov
Player
Nerman Fatic
66%
(
39 of
59)
1st Serve %
70%
(
52 of
74)
0
Aces
1
1
Double Faults
3
59%
(
23 of
39)
1st Serve Won
58%
(
30 of
52)
70%
(
14 of
20)
2nd Serve Won
36%
(
8 of
22)
31%
(
4 of
13)
Break Points Won
100%
(
1 of
1)
37%
(
22 of
59)
Rtn Points Won
49%
(
36 of
74)
73
Total Points Won
60
|
6-0 7-6(5) | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Franco Agamenone
Player
Nerman Fatic
73%
(
66 of
91)
1st Serve %
56%
(
50 of
89)
2
Aces
2
3
Double Faults
1
55%
(
36 of
66)
1st Serve Won
62%
(
31 of
50)
64%
(
16 of
25)
2nd Serve Won
33%
(
13 of
39)
54%
(
7 of
13)
Break Points Won
25%
(
3 of
12)
43%
(
39 of
91)
Rtn Points Won
51%
(
45 of
89)
97
Total Points Won
83
|
4-6 6-3 6-0 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Nerman Fatic
Player
Pablo Llamas Ruiz
69%
(
59 of
86)
1st Serve %
64%
(
63 of
99)
9
Aces
1
2
Double Faults
1
76%
(
45 of
59)
1st Serve Won
59%
(
37 of
63)
48%
(
13 of
27)
2nd Serve Won
47%
(
17 of
36)
55%
(
6 of
11)
Break Points Won
33%
(
2 of
6)
33%
(
28 of
86)
Rtn Points Won
45%
(
45 of
99)
103
Total Points Won
82
|
6-4 6-7(5) 6-0 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Jakub Mensik
Player
Nerman Fatic
64%
(
30 of
47)
1st Serve %
57%
(
28 of
49)
9
Aces
4
2
Double Faults
2
83%
(
25 of
30)
1st Serve Won
71%
(
20 of
28)
71%
(
12 of
17)
2nd Serve Won
43%
(
9 of
21)
75%
(
3 of
4)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
3)
21%
(
10 of
47)
Rtn Points Won
41%
(
20 of
49)
57
Total Points Won
39
|
6-1 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Nerman Fatic
Player
Goncalo Oliveira
65%
(
56 of
86)
1st Serve %
69%
(
49 of
71)
9
Aces
7
5
Double Faults
0
79%
(
44 of
56)
1st Serve Won
82%
(
40 of
49)
53%
(
16 of
30)
2nd Serve Won
68%
(
15 of
22)
33%
(
1 of
3)
Break Points Won
17%
(
1 of
6)
30%
(
26 of
86)
Rtn Points Won
23%
(
16 of
71)
76
Total Points Won
81
|
7-6(3) 7-6(5) | H2H | ||
view more
Sumit Nagal Recent Matches Played
Before:
| opponent | Score | H2H | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2 |
Stats
Holger Rune
Player
Sumit Nagal
54%
(
38 of
70)
1st Serve %
63%
(
55 of
88)
3
Aces
0
3
Double Faults
5
82%
(
31 of
38)
1st Serve Won
62%
(
34 of
55)
56%
(
18 of
32)
2nd Serve Won
45%
(
15 of
33)
45%
(
5 of
11)
Break Points Won
43%
(
3 of
7)
30%
(
21 of
70)
Rtn Points Won
44%
(
39 of
88)
88
Total Points Won
70
|
6-3 3-6 6-2 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Sumit Nagal
Player
Matteo Arnaldi
64%
(
64 of
100)
1st Serve %
55%
(
53 of
97)
1
Aces
6
1
Double Faults
6
55%
(
35 of
64)
1st Serve Won
68%
(
36 of
53)
72%
(
26 of
36)
2nd Serve Won
43%
(
19 of
44)
67%
(
6 of
9)
Break Points Won
44%
(
4 of
9)
39%
(
39 of
100)
Rtn Points Won
43%
(
42 of
97)
103
Total Points Won
94
|
5-7 6-2 6-4 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Sumit Nagal
Player
Facundo Diaz Acosta
70%
(
59 of
84)
1st Serve %
67%
(
56 of
84)
0
Aces
1
0
Double Faults
3
63%
(
37 of
59)
1st Serve Won
57%
(
32 of
56)
44%
(
11 of
25)
2nd Serve Won
54%
(
15 of
28)
67%
(
6 of
9)
Break Points Won
71%
(
5 of
7)
43%
(
36 of
84)
Rtn Points Won
44%
(
37 of
84)
85
Total Points Won
83
|
7-5 2-6 6-2 | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Sumit Nagal
Player
Flavio Cobolli
73%
(
52 of
71)
1st Serve %
63%
(
24 of
38)
1
Aces
4
2
Double Faults
0
71%
(
37 of
52)
1st Serve Won
58%
(
14 of
24)
42%
(
8 of
19)
2nd Serve Won
50%
(
7 of
14)
100%
(
3 of
3)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
5)
37%
(
26 of
71)
Rtn Points Won
45%
(
17 of
38)
62
Total Points Won
47
|
6-2 6-3 | H2H | ||
| R2 |
Stats
Lorenzo Sonego
Player
Sumit Nagal
58%
(
43 of
74)
1st Serve %
73%
(
62 of
85)
4
Aces
2
2
Double Faults
0
79%
(
34 of
43)
1st Serve Won
65%
(
40 of
62)
58%
(
18 of
31)
2nd Serve Won
74%
(
17 of
23)
25%
(
2 of
8)
Break Points Won
50%
(
2 of
4)
30%
(
22 of
74)
Rtn Points Won
33%
(
28 of
85)
80
Total Points Won
79
|
1-6 6-3 6-4 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Sumit Nagal
Player
Corentin Moutet
74%
(
66 of
89)
1st Serve %
80%
(
53 of
66)
6
Aces
3
0
Double Faults
2
67%
(
44 of
66)
1st Serve Won
70%
(
37 of
53)
70%
(
16 of
23)
2nd Serve Won
62%
(
8 of
13)
60%
(
3 of
5)
Break Points Won
14%
(
1 of
7)
33%
(
29 of
89)
Rtn Points Won
32%
(
21 of
66)
81
Total Points Won
74
|
4-6 6-3 6-2 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Chak Lam Coleman Wong
Player
Sumit Nagal
64%
(
60 of
94)
1st Serve %
70%
(
70 of
100)
16
Aces
2
5
Double Faults
1
85%
(
51 of
60)
1st Serve Won
64%
(
45 of
70)
32%
(
11 of
34)
2nd Serve Won
53%
(
16 of
30)
33%
(
3 of
9)
Break Points Won
20%
(
1 of
5)
34%
(
32 of
94)
Rtn Points Won
39%
(
39 of
100)
101
Total Points Won
93
|
3-6 6-1 7-5 | H2H | ||
| R1 |
Stats
Milos Raonic
Player
Sumit Nagal
51%
(
34 of
67)
1st Serve %
60%
(
38 of
63)
9
Aces
0
4
Double Faults
2
76%
(
26 of
34)
1st Serve Won
63%
(
24 of
38)
52%
(
17 of
33)
2nd Serve Won
48%
(
12 of
25)
25%
(
3 of
12)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
2)
36%
(
24 of
67)
Rtn Points Won
43%
(
27 of
63)
70
Total Points Won
60
|
6-3 6-3 | H2H | ||
| QF |
Stats
Seong Chan Hong
Player
Sumit Nagal
59%
(
54 of
92)
1st Serve %
76%
(
65 of
85)
8
Aces
4
2
Double Faults
3
70%
(
38 of
54)
1st Serve Won
74%
(
48 of
65)
53%
(
20 of
38)
2nd Serve Won
35%
(
7 of
20)
43%
(
3 of
7)
Break Points Won
33%
(
3 of
9)
37%
(
34 of
92)
Rtn Points Won
35%
(
30 of
85)
88
Total Points Won
89
|
2-6 6-2 7-6(4) | H2H | ||
| Q1 |
Stats
Sumit Nagal
Player
Stefan Dostanic
61%
(
27 of
44)
1st Serve %
56%
(
34 of
61)
0
Aces
4
1
Double Faults
3
78%
(
21 of
27)
1st Serve Won
59%
(
20 of
34)
65%
(
11 of
17)
2nd Serve Won
41%
(
11 of
27)
50%
(
4 of
8)
Break Points Won
0%
(
0 of
0)
27%
(
12 of
44)
Rtn Points Won
49%
(
30 of
61)
62
Total Points Won
43
|
6-2 6-2 | H2H | ||
view more
Fatic Vs Nagal 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
