August Holmgren and Nathan Ponwith will play each other in the qualifications of the Champaign Challenger for the 2nd time in their career. They are scheduled to compete on Monday at 12:30 pm on COURT 2. In this post, we analyze their head to head performance and prediction.
Prediction, odds and live streaming
The pick for Tennis Tonic is August Holmgren who should win in 2 sets.
As per the initial odds, August Holmgren is the pick to win this match.
August Holmgren -> 1.4
Nathan Ponwith -> 2.77
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 August Holmgren vs. Nathan Ponwith
This will be the 2nd time that August Holmgren and Nathan Ponwith square off. The head to head is 1-0 for Ponwith (see full H2H stats), 1-0 on indoor hard courts.
The last time that they competed against each other, Ponwith won 7-6(7) 2-6 6-3 in the qualifications in the Charlottesville Challenger back in October 2022.
August Holmgren
| Year | Total | Hard | Clay | I.hard | Grass | Carpet |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 32-19 | 24-12 | 6-6 | 2-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2023 | 46-26 | 33-14 | 9-6 | 4-6 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2022 | 31-12 | 18-4 | 10-5 | 3-3 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2021 | 19-8 | 12-6 | 7-2 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2020 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
Ranked no. 518, August got to the qualifications after defeating Connor Farren 6-4 6-3.
In the qualifications, Holmgren had a good straight sets win against Farren (6-4 6-3). During the match, Holmgren scored 69 points vs Farren’s 50. August was exceptionally aggressive to blast 22 winners.
Regarding the service games, Holmgren struck 7 aces and he committed only 2 double faults. Overall, August Holmgren was pretty effective on serve to win 71% (22/31) of his 1st serve and 73% (19/26) on the second serve. However, this didn’t prevent his to concede the serve once. Holmgren broke Farren 3 times after converting 60% of his break points (3/5).
Holmgren has a solid match record in the last 6 years having won 69% of his matches (87-39). 1-2 on indoor hard courts in 2022. Talking about his performance on the same surface of this competition, Holmgren has an overall2-2 match record in the last 6 years on indoor hard courts.
August’s best result of the season was reaching the final in M15 Rancho Santa Fe and M15 San Diego.
August has a composed 29-11 win-loss record in 2022, 1-2 on indoor hard courts (See FULL STATS).
Previously in the Champaign Challenger
August has never competed in this tournament before.
Nathan Ponwith
| Year | Total | Hard | Clay | I.hard | Grass | Carpet |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 17-23 | 15-18 | 2-3 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2023 | 22-32 | 18-25 | 2-2 | 2-5 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2022 | 30-27 | 19-15 | 6-7 | 5-5 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2021 | 17-14 | 16-13 | 0-0 | 1-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2020 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
Ranked no. 547, the American got to the qualifications after defeating Nicolas Meister 7-63 6-3.
In the qualifications, The American had a good straight sets win against Meister (7-63 6-3). During the match Ponwith scored 88 points vs Meister’s 77. The American was very aggressive to blast 34 winners.
About the serving games, Ponwith fired 3 aces and he committed only 8 double faults. Nathan Ponwith lost the serve 3 times and he saved 4 break points. Furthermore, Ponwith put 57% of his first serves in, winning 68% (34/50) of the points behind his 1st serve and 46% (17/37) on the 2nd serve. Ponwith broke Meister 4 times after converting 40% of his break points (4/10).
Ponwith’s best result of the year was getting to the final in M15 San Diego,M15 Lakewood and M25 Edwardsville.
The American has a composed 30-26 win-loss record in 2022, 5-4 on indoor hard courts (See FULL STATS).
H2H Performance in the tournament
Matches, sets, games and points
| Points | Holmgren | Ponwith |
|---|---|---|
| Match played | 1 | 1 |
| Tot Set | 2 | 2 |
| Tot Games | 19 | 22 |
| Pts | 69-50 | 88-77 |
| Total Points | 119 | 165 |
| Winners | 22 | 34 |
| %Winners | 32% | 39% |
Both Holmgren and Ponwith played 1 match. Also both players started their run from the qualifications.Both players have not conceded a single set in this event so far. Talking about their workload, Holmgren and Ponwith have played the same amount of sets 2. However, Holmgren played 3 games less than Ponwith. The Dane scored 22 winners (32% of the total points). On the other side, Ponwith bagged 34 winners (39%).
Serve Performance
| Serve | Holmgren | Ponwith |
|---|---|---|
| Aces | 7 | 3 |
| Avg per match | 7 | 3 |
| 1st in | 31/57 | 50/87 |
| %1st in | 54% | 57% |
| 1st pts | 22/31 | 34/50 |
| %1st pts | 71% | 68% |
| 2nd pts | 19/26 | 17/37 |
| %2nd pts | 73% | 46% |
Holmgren fired 7 aces . Ponwith blasted 3 aces . Holmgren won 71% points on his first serve. He had a solid display on his second serve to win 73% of the points. On the other side, Ponwith won 68% of the points on his first serve. He had a solid display on his second serve to win 46% of the points.
How they played the important points
| Breaks | Holmgren | Ponwith |
|---|---|---|
| Won | 3 | 4 |
| Converted | 3/5 | 4/10 |
| % Converted | 60% | 40% |
| Conceded | 1 | 7 |
| Saved | 0 | 4 |
| % Saved | 0% | 57% |
| Times Broken | 1 | 3 |
Holmgren broke his opponent 3 times with a 60% conversion rate. The Dane lost his serve once and he saved 0% of the break points that he conceded. Nathan broke his opponent 4 times with a 40% conversion rate. Ponwith conceded his serve 3 times and he saved 57% of the break points that he conceded.
| Holmgren | |||
| Q1 Farren |
Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Score | 6-4 6-3 | ||
| Tot Set | 2 | 2 | |
| Tot Games | 19 | 19 | |
| pts | 69-50 | 69-50 | |
| Total points | 119 | 119 | |
| Winners | 22 | 22 | |
| %Winners | 32% | 32% | |
| SERVE | |||
| Aces | 7 | 7 | |
| Double Faults | 2 | 2 | |
| 1st in | 31/57 | 31/57 | |
| % 1st in | 54% | 54% | |
| 1st pts | 22/31 | 22/31 | |
| % 1st pts | 71% | 71% | |
| 2nd pts | 19/26 | 19/26 | |
| % 2nd pts | 73% | 73% | |
| Breaks | |||
| Won | 3 | 3 | |
| Converted | 3/5 | 3/5 | |
| Converted % | 60% | 60% | |
| Conceded | 1 | 1 | |
| Saved | 0/1 | 0 | |
| Saved % | 0% | 0% | |
| Times Broken | 1 | 1 | |
| Ponwith | |||
| Q1 Meister |
Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Score | 7-63 6-3 | ||
| Tot Set | 2 | 2 | |
| Tot Games | 22 | 22 | |
| pts | 88-77 | 88-77 | |
| Total points | 165 | 165 | |
| Winners | 34 | 34 | |
| %Winners | 39% | 39% | |
| SERVE | |||
| Aces | 3 | 3 | |
| Double Faults | 8 | 8 | |
| 1st in | 50/87 | 50/87 | |
| % 1st in | 57% | 57% | |
| 1st pts | 34/50 | 34/50 | |
| % 1st pts | 68% | 68% | |
| 2nd pts | 17/37 | 17/37 | |
| % 2nd pts | 46% | 46% | |
| Breaks | |||
| Won | 4 | 4 | |
| Converted | 4/10 | 4/10 | |
| Converted % | 40% | 40% | |
| Conceded | 7 | 7 | |
| Saved | 4/7 | 4 | |
| Saved % | 57% | 57% | |
| Times Broken | 3 | 3 | |
Head 2 Head
WLLLWWWWWL
LLLLLLWLWL
Upcoming matches in the draw
- Tennys SandgrenSandgren – Benjamin LockLock (1-0) – H2H and prediction
- Denis KudlaKudla – Nicolas Alvarez VaronaAlvarez Varona (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Sebastian FanselowFanselow – Ezekiel ClarkClark (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Stefan KozlovKozlov – Prajnesh GunneswaranGunneswaran (1-0) – H2H and prediction
- Christopher EubanksEubanks – Adam WaltonWalton (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Lucas GerchGerch – Nick ChappellChappell (1-0) – H2H and prediction
- Ernesto EscobedoEscobedo – (0-2) – H2H and prediction
- Strong KirchheimerKirchheimer – Theo ArribageArribage (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Alfredo PerezPerez – (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Evan ZhuZhu – Patrick KypsonKypson (0-1) – H2H and prediction
- Aleksandar KovacevicKovacevic – Alafia AyeniAyeni (1-0) – H2H and prediction
- August HolmgrenHolmgren – Nathan PonwithPonwith (0-1) – H2H and prediction
- Aidan MchughMchugh – Aleksandar VukicVukic (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Hunter HeckHeck – Steve JohnsonJohnson (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Karlis OzolinsOzolins – (0-0) – H2H and prediction
