Daniel Michalski and Tobias Kamke will play each other in the qualifications of the Prague 2 Challenger for the 1st time in their career. They are scheduled to compete on Monday at 12:00 pm on COURT 2. In the following paragraphs, you can find the head to head analysis and prediction.
Prediction, odds and live streaming
The pick for Tennis Tonic is Daniel Michalski who should win in 3 sets.
As per the initial odds, Daniel Michalski is the pick to win this match.
Daniel Michalski -> 1.53
Tobias Kamke -> 2.37
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 Daniel Michalski vs. Tobias Kamke
There is no head to head record between Daniel Michalski and Tobias Kamke since this will be the first time that they will fight against each other in the main tour.
Daniel Michalski
| Year | Total | Hard | Clay | I.hard | Grass | Carpet |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 39-26 | 1-6 | 36-19 | 2-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2023 | 40-25 | 4-6 | 36-18 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2022 | 51-24 | 0-0 | 51-24 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2021 | 47-25 | 0-3 | 47-20 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2020 | 13-10 | 7-3 | 4-5 | 2-2 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
Ranked no. 291, the Pole got to the qualifications after defeating Sanjar Fayziev 5-7 6-2 6-1.
In the qualifications against Fayziev, Daniel recovered from a 1-set down deficit before winning (5-7 6-2 6-1). During the match, Michalski scored 95 points vs Fayziev’s 76. The Pole was extremely aggressive to blast 34 winners.
Regarding the service games, Michalski scored just 1 ace in the encounter and he committed only 4 double faults. Overall, Daniel Michalski was pretty efficient on serve to win 71% (34/48) of his 1st serve and 53% (16/30) on the second serve. However, this didn’t prevent his to concede the serve 3 times. The Pole broke Fayziev 7 times after converting 54% of his break points (7/13).
Michalski has a solid record in the last 6 years having won 64% of his matches (136-75). 27-7 on clay in 2022. Talking about his performance on the same surface of this competition, Michalski has an aggregate110-53 match record in the last 6 years on clay.
The Pole’s best result of the current season was reaching the final in M15 Cairo and the Zadar Challenger.
Daniel has a compiled 27-7 win-loss record in 2022, 27-7 on clay (See FULL STATS).
Previously in the Prague 2 Challenger
Michalski has never competed in this tournament before.
Tobias Kamke
| Year | Total | Hard | Clay | I.hard | Grass | Carpet |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 7-8 | 2-2 | 3-3 | 2-3 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2021 | 18-28 | 4-4 | 4-9 | 10-13 | 0-1 | 0-1 |
| 2020 | 16-13 | 0-1 | 2-4 | 12-7 | 0-0 | 2-1 |
| 2019 | 27-24 | 8-6 | 6-6 | 11-9 | 1-2 | 1-1 |
| 2018 | 30-28 | 11-8 | 2-9 | 10-8 | 5-2 | 2-1 |
Ranked no. 308, Tobias got to the qualifications after defeating Marek Gengel 6-4 1-6 7-5.
In the qualifications, Tobias defeated Gengel (6-4 1-6 7-5).During the match Kamke scored less points (1) than Gengel. In fact, the world no. 291 won 83 points vs Gengel’s. That means that Kamke was more focused during the important points. The German was pretty aggressive to blast 27 winners.
Talking about serving, Kamke scored just 1 ace during the entire match and he committed only 5 double faults. Tobias Kamke lost the serve 7 times and he saved 2 break points. Furthermore, Kamke put 49% of his first serves in, winning 61% (27/44) of the points behind his 1st serve and 44% (20/45) on the 2nd serve. The German broke Gengel 6 times after converting 55% of his break points (6/11).
The German has a composed 6-6 win-loss record in 2022, 2-1 on clay (See FULL STATS).
H2H Performance in the tournament
Matches, sets, games and points
| Points | Michalski | Kamke |
|---|---|---|
| Match played | 1 | 1 |
| Tot Set | 3 | 3 |
| Tot Games | 27 | 29 |
| Pts | 95-76 | 83-84 |
| Total Points | 171 | 167 |
| Winners | 34 | 27 |
| %Winners | 36% | 33% |
Both Michalski and Kamke played 1 match. Also both players started their run from the qualifications.Both players lost a set in the event. Daniel Michalski surrendered 1 set, while Tobias Kamke conceded 1 set. Talking about their workload, Michalski and Kamke have played the same amount of sets 3. However, Michalski played 2 games less than Kamke. Michalski scored 34 winners (36% of the total points). On the other side, The German struck 27 winners (33%).
Serve Performance
| Serve | Michalski | Kamke |
|---|---|---|
| Aces | 1 | 1 |
| Avg per match | 1 | 1 |
| 1st in | 48/78 | 44/89 |
| %1st in | 62% | 49% |
| 1st pts | 34/48 | 27/44 |
| %1st pts | 71% | 61% |
| 2nd pts | 16/30 | 20/45 |
| %2nd pts | 53% | 44% |
Michalski struck 1 ace . Kamke also bagged 1 ace . Michalski won 71% points on his first serve. He pretty solid on his second serve to win 53% of the points. On the other side, Kamke won 61% 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 | Michalski | Kamke |
|---|---|---|
| Won | 7 | 6 |
| Converted | 7/13 | 6/11 |
| % Converted | 54% | 55% |
| Conceded | 6 | 9 |
| Saved | 3 | 2 |
| % Saved | 50% | 22% |
| Times Broken | 3 | 7 |
Michalski broke his opponent 7 times with a 54% conversion rate. Michalski conceded his serve 3 times and he saved 50% of the break points that he conceded. Tobias broke his opponent 6 times with a 55% conversion rate. Tobias conceded his serve 7 times and he saved 22% of the break points that he conceded.
| Michalski | |||
| Q1 Fayziev |
Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Score | 5-7 6-2 6-1 | ||
| Tot Set | 3 | 3 | |
| Tot Games | 27 | 27 | |
| pts | 95-76 | 95-76 | |
| Total points | 171 | 171 | |
| Winners | 34 | 34 | |
| %Winners | 36% | 36% | |
| SERVE | |||
| Aces | 1 | 1 | |
| Double Faults | 4 | 4 | |
| 1st in | 48/78 | 48/78 | |
| % 1st in | 62% | 62% | |
| 1st pts | 34/48 | 34/48 | |
| % 1st pts | 71% | 71% | |
| 2nd pts | 16/30 | 16/30 | |
| % 2nd pts | 53% | 53% | |
| Breaks | |||
| Won | 7 | 7 | |
| Converted | 7/13 | 7/13 | |
| Converted % | 54% | 54% | |
| Conceded | 6 | 6 | |
| Saved | 3/6 | 3 | |
| Saved % | 50% | 50% | |
| Times Broken | 3 | 3 | |
| Kamke | |||
| Q1 Gengel |
Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Score | 6-4 1-6 7-5 | ||
| Tot Set | 3 | 3 | |
| Tot Games | 29 | 29 | |
| pts | 83-84 | 83-84 | |
| Total points | 167 | 167 | |
| Winners | 27 | 27 | |
| %Winners | 33% | 33% | |
| SERVE | |||
| Aces | 1 | 1 | |
| Double Faults | 5 | 5 | |
| 1st in | 44/89 | 44/89 | |
| % 1st in | 49% | 49% | |
| 1st pts | 27/44 | 27/44 | |
| % 1st pts | 61% | 61% | |
| 2nd pts | 20/45 | 20/45 | |
| % 2nd pts | 44% | 44% | |
| Breaks | |||
| Won | 6 | 6 | |
| Converted | 6/11 | 6/11 | |
| Converted % | 55% | 55% | |
| Conceded | 9 | 9 | |
| Saved | 2/9 | 2 | |
| Saved % | 22% | 22% | |
| Times Broken | 7 | 7 | |
Head 2 Head
LWLLWWWWWW
Upcoming matches in the draw
- Lukas RosolRosol – Denis YevseyevYevseyev (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Marius CopilCopil – Lorenzo GiustinoGiustino (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Dimitar KuzmanovKuzmanov – Illya MarchenkoMarchenko (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Riccardo BonadioBonadio – Nuno BorgesBorges (0-1) – H2H and prediction
- Kaichi UchidaUchida – Lucas GerchGerch (1-2) – H2H and prediction
- Max PurcellPurcell – Matteo DonatiDonati (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Aleksandar VukicVukic – Ryan PenistonPeniston (1-0) – H2H and prediction
- Geoffrey BlancaneauxBlancaneaux – Juan Pablo FicovichPablo Ficovich (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Evan FurnessFurness – Sebastian OfnerOfner (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Vit KoprivaKopriva – Mirza BasicBasic (0-3) – H2H and prediction
- Clement TaburTabur – Tristan LamasineLamasine (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Marvin MoellerMoeller – Yshai OlielOliel (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Jesper De JongDe Jong – Martin KrumichKrumich (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Daniel MichalskiMichalski – Tobias KamkeKamke (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Dalibor SvrcinaSvrcina – Pedro CachinCachin (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Andrew PaulsonPaulson – Maximilian MartererMarterer (0-0) – H2H and prediction
