Peter Polansky and Sebastian Fanselow will clash against each other in the qualifications of the Columbus Challenger for the 1st time in their career. They are scheduled to play on Monday at 12:30 pm on COURT 1. Here the head to head stats and relative prediction.
Prediction, odds and live streaming
The pick for Tennis Tonic is Sebastian Fanselow who should win in 3 sets.
As per the initial odds, Sebastian Fanselow is the pick to win this match.
Sebastian Fanselow -> 1.83
Peter Polansky -> 1.93
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 Peter Polansky vs. Sebastian Fanselow
There is no head to head record between Peter Polansky and Sebastian Fanselow since this will be the first time that they will play each other in the main tour.
Peter Polansky
| Year | Total | Hard | Clay | I.hard | Grass | Carpet |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 0-3 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-1 | 0-0 |
| 2022 | 1-3 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2021 | 14-25 | 12-15 | 0-5 | 2-5 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2020 | 4-19 | 3-8 | 1-8 | 0-3 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2019 | 27-36 | 16-22 | 4-6 | 6-4 | 1-4 | 0-0 |
Ranked no. 282, Peter reached the qualifications after beating Jc Aragone 6-3 6-3.
In the qualifications, Peter had a good straight sets win against Aragone (6-3 6-3). During the match, Polansky scored 65 points vs Aragone’s 47. The Canadian was quite aggressive to blast 21 winners.
Regarding the service games, Polansky scored 2 aces and he was extremely steady in conceding no double faults. Peter Polansky conceded no breaks for the entire match to save 2 break points. Furthermore, Polansky put 55% of his first serves in, winning 70% (21/30) of the points behind his 1st serve and 76% (19/25) on the 2nd serve. Peter broke Aragone 3 times after converting 75% of his break points (3/4).
Polansky has a favorable win-loss record in the last 10 years having won 53% of his matches (278-249). 1-0 on indoor hard courts in 2022. Regarding his performance on the same surface of this event, Polansky has an aggregate 46-38 record in the last years on indoor hard courts.
Polansky has a composed 1-0 win-loss record in 2022, 1-0 on indoor hard courts (See FULL STATS).
Previously in the Columbus Challenger
Sebastian Fanselow
| Year | Total | Hard | Clay | I.hard | Grass | Carpet |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 29-34 | 7-9 | 14-18 | 8-6 | 0-1 | 0-0 |
| 2023 | 56-31 | 24-9 | 20-15 | 12-7 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2022 | 27-31 | 5-11 | 17-13 | 5-7 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2021 | 35-28 | 17-13 | 13-11 | 5-4 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2020 | 34-15 | 34-13 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
Ranked no. 348, the German reached the qualifications after defeating Zachary Svajda 2-6 6-4 6-4.
In the qualifications against Svajda, Sebastian recovered from a 1-set down deficit before winning (2-6 6-4 6-4).During the match Fanselow scored less points (8) than Svajda. In fact, the world no. 282 won 81 points vs Svajda’s. That means that Fanselow was more focused during the important points. Sebastian was extremely aggressive to blast 38 winners.
About the serving games, Fanselow made 12 aces and he committed only 2 double faults. Sebastian Fanselow lost the serve twice and he saved 5 break points. Furthermore, Fanselow put 47% of his first serves in, winning 83% (38/46) of the points behind his 1st serve and 44% (23/52) on the 2nd serve. The German broke Svajda twice after converting 40% of his break points (2/5).
Sebastian has a composed 1-1 win-loss record in 2022, 1-1 on indoor hard courts (See FULL STATS).
Previously in the Columbus Challenger
The German has never competed in this tournament before.
H2H Performance in the tournament
Matches, sets, games and points
| Points | Polansky | Fanselow |
|---|---|---|
| Match played | 1 | 1 |
| Tot Set | 2 | 3 |
| Tot Games | 18 | 28 |
| Pts | 65-47 | 81-89 |
| Total Points | 112 | 170 |
| Winners | 21 | 38 |
| %Winners | 32% | 47% |
Both Polansky and Fanselow played 1 match. Also both players started their run from the qualifications.At the moment, Sebastian Fanselow conceded 1 set while Peter Polansky hasn’t dropped a set so far. Polansky has played 1 set(s) less than Fanselow (2 vs 3). Therefore, Polansky played 10 games less than Fanselow. Peter scored 21 winners (32% of the total points). On the other side, Sebastian bagged 38 winners (47%).
Serve Performance
| Serve | Polansky | Fanselow |
|---|---|---|
| Aces | 2 | 12 |
| Avg per match | 2 | 12 |
| 1st in | 30/55 | 46/98 |
| %1st in | 55% | 47% |
| 1st pts | 21/30 | 38/46 |
| %1st pts | 70% | 83% |
| 2nd pts | 19/25 | 23/52 |
| %2nd pts | 76% | 44% |
Polansky managed to score 2 aces . Fanselow managed to score 12 aces . Polansky won 70% points behind his first serve. He pretty effective on his second serve to win 76% of the points. On the other side, Fanselow won 83% of the points on his first serve. He had a solid display on his second serve to win 44% of the points.
How they played the important points
| Breaks | Polansky | Fanselow |
|---|---|---|
| Won | 3 | 2 |
| Converted | 3/4 | 2/5 |
| % Converted | 75% | 40% |
| Conceded | 2 | 7 |
| Saved | 2 | 5 |
| % Saved | 100% | 71% |
| Times Broken | 0 | 2 |
Peter broke his opponent 3 times with a 75% conversion rate. Polansky pretty solid on his serve as he has never dropped a single service game after saving 2 break points. The German broke his opponent twice with a 40% conversion rate. Sebastian conceded his serve twice and he saved 71% of the break points that he conceded.
| Polansky | |||
| Q1 Aragone |
Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Score | 6-3 6-3 | ||
| Tot Set | 2 | 2 | |
| Tot Games | 18 | 18 | |
| pts | 65-47 | 65-47 | |
| Total points | 112 | 112 | |
| Winners | 21 | 21 | |
| %Winners | 32% | 32% | |
| SERVE | |||
| Aces | 2 | 2 | |
| Double Faults | 0 | 0 | |
| 1st in | 30/55 | 30/55 | |
| % 1st in | 55% | 55% | |
| 1st pts | 21/30 | 21/30 | |
| % 1st pts | 70% | 70% | |
| 2nd pts | 19/25 | 19/25 | |
| % 2nd pts | 76% | 76% | |
| Breaks | |||
| Won | 3 | 3 | |
| Converted | 3/4 | 3/4 | |
| Converted % | 75% | 75% | |
| Conceded | 2 | 2 | |
| Saved | 2/2 | 2 | |
| Saved % | 100% | 100% | |
| Times Broken | 0 | 0 | |
| Fanselow | |||
| Q1 Svajda |
Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Score | 2-6 6-4 6-4 | ||
| Tot Set | 3 | 3 | |
| Tot Games | 28 | 28 | |
| pts | 81-89 | 81-89 | |
| Total points | 170 | 170 | |
| Winners | 38 | 38 | |
| %Winners | 47% | 47% | |
| SERVE | |||
| Aces | 12 | 12 | |
| Double Faults | 2 | 2 | |
| 1st in | 46/98 | 46/98 | |
| % 1st in | 47% | 47% | |
| 1st pts | 38/46 | 38/46 | |
| % 1st pts | 83% | 83% | |
| 2nd pts | 23/52 | 23/52 | |
| % 2nd pts | 44% | 44% | |
| Breaks | |||
| Won | 2 | 2 | |
| Converted | 2/5 | 2/5 | |
| Converted % | 40% | 40% | |
| Conceded | 7 | 7 | |
| Saved | 5/7 | 5 | |
| Saved % | 71% | 71% | |
| Times Broken | 2 | 2 | |
Head 2 Head
LLWWLWWLLW
Upcoming matches in the draw
- Go SoedaSoeda – Tung-Lin WuWu (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Tobias KamkeKamke – Roberto QuirozQuiroz (1-0) – H2H and prediction
- Donald YoungYoung – Ryan HarrisonHarrison (2-7) – H2H and prediction
- Peter PolanskyPolansky – Sebastian FanselowFanselow (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Jason JungJung – Ernesto EscobedoEscobedo (1-3) – H2H and prediction
- Yasutaka UchiyamaUchiyama – Nicola KuhnKuhn (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Jack SockSock – Christopher EubanksEubanks (0-1) – H2H and prediction
- Mikael TorpegaardTorpegaard – Michael MmohMmoh (1-4) – H2H and prediction
- Brayden SchnurSchnur – Jurij RodionovRodionov (0-2) – H2H and prediction
- Yosuke WatanukiWatanuki – Alex RybakovRybakov (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Nicolas MejiaMejia – Alexis GalarneauGalarneau (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Geoffrey BlancaneauxBlancaneaux – Emilio GomezGomez (0-1) – H2H and prediction
- Jenson BrooksbyBrooksby – Mitchell KruegerKrueger (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Jeff WolfWolf – (0-0) – H2H and prediction
