Prajnesh Gunneswaran and Botic Van De Zandschulp will clash against each other in the semifinal of the Ismaning Challenger for the 1st time in their career. They are scheduled to compete on Saturday at 3:30 pm on CENTRE. Here you can find the head to head analysis and the prediction.
Prediction, odds and live streaming
The pick for Tennis Tonic is Botic Van De Zandschulp who should win in 2 sets.
As per the initial odds, Botic Van De Zandschulp is the pick to win this match.
Botic Van De Zandschulp -> 1.37
Prajnesh Gunneswaran -> 3.1
Click here to see the updated quotes and live streaming (only selected countries - USA excluded).
To be able to watch live streaming bet365, a funded account is required or you need to have placed a bet in the last 24 hours. 18+ BeGambleAware.
Here where top tennis events are broadcasted or streamed online (ATP, WTA).
At the challenger level, there will be free live streaming on Challenger TV.
Â
Prediction and head to head Prajnesh Gunneswaran vs. Botic Van De Zandschulp
There is no head to head record between Prajnesh Gunneswaran and Botic Van De Zandschulp since this will be the first time that they will clash against each other in the main tour.
Prajnesh Gunneswaran
Ranked no. 152, the Indian reached the semifinal after defeating Tomas Martin Etcheverry 6-4 3-6 7-63, Lukas Lacko 6-4 5-7 6-4 and Daniel Masur 7-5 6-79 6-3.
In the 2nd round, The Indian defeated Lacko (6-4 5-7 6-4). During the match Gunneswaran scored 104 points vs Lacko’s 88. The Indian was pretty aggressive to blast 40 winners.
Regarding the service games, Gunneswaran made 17 aces and he committed only 2 double faults. Overall, Prajnesh Gunneswaran was extremely efficent on serve to win 85% (40/47) of his 1st serve and 71% (25/35) on the second serve. However, this didn’t prevent his to concede the serve once. The Indian broke Lacko twice after converting 29% of his break points (2/7).
Overall Performance in this tournament
The Indian has conceded 2 set in this event to conquer 53% of the points he played.
Gunneswaran has a solid win-loss record in the last 9 years having won 63% of his matches (247-144). 2-0 on carpet in 2020. Regarding his performance on the same surface of this competition, Gunneswaran has a 7-5 record in the last 9 years on carpet.
The Indian has a 9-11 win-loss record in 2020, 2-0 on carpet (See FULL STATS).
Last year in the Ismaning Challenger
Gunneswaran didn’t play in the Ismaning Challenger in 2019.
Botic Van De Zandschulp
Ranked no. 174, Van De Zandschulp reached the semifinal after defeating Juan Pablo Varillas 6-0 6-1, Ramkumar Ramanathan 6-2 6-2 and Tobias Kamke 6-3 3-6 7-69.
In the quarter, The Dutch defeated Kamke (6-3 3-6 7-69). During the match Van De Zandschulp scored 99 points vs Kamke’s 97. The Dutch was quite aggressive to blast 48 winners.
Talking about serving, Van De Zandschulp made 13 aces and he committed only 4 double faults. Botic Van De Zandschulp lost the serve 3 times and he saved 3 break points. Furthermore, Van De Zandschulp put 61% of his first serves in, winning 80% (48/60) of the points behind his 1st serve and 42% (16/38) on the 2nd serve. The Dutch broke Kamke 3 times after converting 60% of his break points (3/5).
Overall Performance in this tournament
The Dutch has conceded 1 set in the tournament to win 58% of the points he played.
The Dutch’s best result of the year was getting to the final in the Koblenz Challenger.
Van De Zandschulp has a 14-12 win-loss record in 2020, 3-0 on carpet (See FULL STATS).
Last year in the Ismaning Challenger
The Dutch lost in the 1st round to Luca Vanni.
H2H Performance in the tournament
Matches, sets, games and points
| Points | Gunneswaran | Van De Zandschulp |
|---|---|---|
| Match played | 2 | 3 |
| Tot Set | 6 | 7 |
| Tot Games | 64 | 60 |
| Pts | 210-188 | 205-148 |
| Total Points | 398 | 353 |
| Winners | 78 | 93 |
| %Winners | 37% | 45% |
Gunneswaran played 2 matches while Van De Zandschulp competed in 3 matches. Both players lost a set in the event. Prajnesh Gunneswaran conceded 2 sets, while Botic Van De Zandschulp dropper 1 set. Gunneswaran has played 1 set(s) less than Van De Zandschulp (6 vs 7). However, it’s interesting to notice that Gunneswaran played 4 games more than Van De Zandschulp. Prajnesh scored 78 winners (37% of the total points). On the other side, Van De Zandschulp fired 93 winners (45%).
Serve Performance
| Serve | Gunneswaran | Van De Zandschulp |
|---|---|---|
| Aces | 23 | 28 |
| Avg per match | 11.5 | 9.3 |
| 1st in | 94/167 | 117/180 |
| %1st in | 56% | 65% |
| 1st pts | 78/94 | 93/117 |
| %1st pts | 83% | 79% |
| 2nd pts | 50/73 | 33/63 |
| %2nd pts | 68% | 52% |
Gunneswaran struck 23 aces (11.5 per match). Van De Zandschulp made 28 aces (9.3 per match). Gunneswaran won 83% points behind his first serve. He quite strong on his second serve to win 68% of the points. On the other side, Van De Zandschulp won 79% of the points behind his first serve. He had a solid display on his second serve to win 52% of the points.
How they played the important points
| Breaks | Gunneswaran | Van De Zandschulp |
|---|---|---|
| Won | 3 | 12 |
| Converted | 3/23 | 12/16 |
| % Converted | 13% | 75% |
| Conceded | 9 | 9 |
| Saved | 7 | 6 |
| % Saved | 78% | 67% |
| Times Broken | 2 | 3 |
Gunneswaran broke his opponents 3 times with a 13% conversion rate. Gunneswaran conceded his serve twice and he saved 78% of the break points that he conceded. Botic broke his opponents 12 times with a 75% conversion rate. Van De Zandschulp conceded his serve 3 times and he saved 67% of the break points that he conceded.
| Gunneswaran | ||||
| R1 Martin |
R2 Lacko |
Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Score | 6-4 3-6 7-63 | 6-4 5-7 6-4 | ||
| Tot Set | 3 | 3 | 6 | |
| Tot Games | 32 | 32 | 64 | |
| pts | 106-100 | 104-88 | 210-188 | |
| Total points | 206 | 192 | 398 | |
| Winners | 38 | 40 | 78 | |
| %Winners | 36% | 38% | 37% | |
| SERVE | ||||
| Aces | 6 | 17 | 23 | |
| Double Faults | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| 1st in | 47/85 | 47/82 | 94/167 | |
| % 1st in | 55% | 57% | 56% | |
| 1st pts | 38/47 | 40/47 | 78/94 | |
| % 1st pts | 81% | 85% | 83% | |
| 2nd pts | 25/38 | 25/35 | 50/73 | |
| % 2nd pts | 66% | 71% | 68% | |
| Breaks | ||||
| Won | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Converted | 1/16 | 2/7 | 3/23 | |
| Converted % | 6% | 29% | 13% | |
| Conceded | 4 | 5 | 9 | |
| Saved | 3/4 | 4/5 | 7 | |
| Saved % | 75% | 80% | 78% | |
| Times Broken | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| Van De Zandschulp | |||||
| R1 Pablo Patino-Samudio |
R2 Ramanathan |
1/4 Kamke |
Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Score | 6-0 6-1 | 6-2 6-2 | 6-3 3-6 7-69 | ||
| Tot Set | 2 | 2 | 3 | 7 | |
| Tot Games | 13 | 16 | 31 | 60 | |
| pts | 51-19 | 55-32 | 99-97 | 205-148 | |
| Total points | 70 | 87 | 196 | 353 | |
| Winners | 21 | 24 | 48 | 93 | |
| %Winners | 41% | 44% | 48% | 45% | |
| SERVE | |||||
| Aces | 8 | 7 | 13 | 28 | |
| Double Faults | 1 | 1 | 4 | 6 | |
| 1st in | 28/39 | 29/43 | 60/98 | 117/180 | |
| % 1st in | 72% | 67% | 61% | 65% | |
| 1st pts | 21/28 | 24/29 | 48/60 | 93/117 | |
| % 1st pts | 75% | 83% | 80% | 79% | |
| 2nd pts | 8/11 | 9/14 | 16/38 | 33/63 | |
| % 2nd pts | 73% | 64% | 42% | 52% | |
| Breaks | |||||
| Won | 5 | 4 | 3 | 12 | |
| Converted | 5/5 | 4/6 | 3/5 | 12/16 | |
| Converted % | 100% | 67% | 60% | 75% | |
| Conceded | 1 | 2 | 6 | 9 | |
| Saved | 1/1 | 2/2 | 3/6 | 6 | |
| Saved % | 100% | 100% | 50% | 125% | |
| Times Broken | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | |
Head 2 Head
LLWLWWWLLW Tennis Scores in Ismaning Challenger
- Marc-Andrea HueslerHuesler – Sebastian KordaKorda (6-4 6-4) – See score progression
- Prajnesh GunneswaranGunneswaran – Daniel MasurMasur (7-5 6-79 6-3) – See score progression
- Antoine HoangHoang – Maximilian MartererMarterer (5-7 6-4 6-4) – See score progression
- Botic Van De ZandschulpVan De Zandschulp – Tobias KamkeKamke (6-3 3-6 7-69) – See score progression
- Antoine HoangHoang – Maximilian MartererMarterer (5-7 6-4 6-4) – See score progression
- Prajnesh GunneswaranGunneswaran – Daniel MasurMasur (7-5 6-7(9) 6-3) – See score progression
Upcoming matches in the draw
- Prajnesh GunneswaranGunneswaran – Botic Van De ZandschulpVan De Zandschulp (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Marc-Andrea HueslerHuesler – Antoine HoangHoang (0-0) – H2H and prediction
