Jordan Thompson and Zachary Svajda will clash against each other in the semifinal of the Rome Challenger for the 1st time in their career. They are scheduled to compete on Saturday at 2:30 pm on COURT 3. Here the head to head stats and relative prediction.
Prediction, odds and live streaming
The pick for Tennis Tonic is Jordan Thompson who should win in 3 sets.
As per the initial odds, Jordan Thompson is the pick to win this match.
Jordan Thompson -> 1.52
Zachary Svajda -> 2.45
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 Jordan Thompson vs. Zachary Svajda
There is no head to head record between Jordan Thompson and Zachary Svajda since this will be the first time that they will square off in the main tour.
Jordan Thompson
| Year | Total | Hard | Clay | I.hard | Grass | Carpet |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 16-18 | 7-10 | 2-3 | 3-2 | 4-3 | 0-0 |
| 2024 | 35-24 | 23-13 | 3-5 | 5-3 | 4-3 | 0-0 |
| 2023 | 41-28 | 22-15 | 0-3 | 7-4 | 12-6 | 0-0 |
| 2022 | 40-26 | 18-14 | 2-6 | 8-1 | 12-5 | 0-0 |
| 2021 | 23-25 | 10-11 | 2-6 | 0-1 | 9-5 | 2-2 |
Ranked no. 93, Thompson reached the semifinal after defeating Aziz Dougaz 6-3 6-4, Henri Squire 6-4 6-1 and Alastair Gray 6-4 6-2.
In the quarter, Thompson had a good straight sets win against Gray (6-4 6-2). During the match, Thompson scored 68 points vs Gray’s 45. The Australian was very aggressive to blast 23 winners.
Talking about the service games, Thompson made 2 aces and he committed only 1 double fault. Overall, Jordan Thompson was very efficient on serve to win 79% (23/29) of his 1st serve and 70% (14/20) on the second serve. However, this didn’t prevent his to concede the serve once. Thompson broke Gray 4 times after converting 40% of his break points (4/10).
Overall Performance in this tournament
Thompson hasn’t surrendered yet a set in this tournament to conquer 61% of the points he played.
Thompson has favorable match record in the last 10 years having won 59% of his matches (346-238). 4-1 on indoor hard courts in 2023. Regarding his performance on the same surface of this tournament, Thompson has an overall 33-16 match record in the last years on indoor hard courts.
Jordan has a compiled 5-5 win-loss record in 2023, 4-1 on indoor hard courts (See FULL STATS).
Previously in the Rome Challenger
The Australian has never competed in this tournament before.
Zachary Svajda
| Year | Total | Hard | Clay | I.hard | Grass | Carpet |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 33-21 | 18-15 | 1-2 | 0-1 | 14-3 | 0-0 |
| 2024 | 37-35 | 27-21 | 2-4 | 2-5 | 6-5 | 0-0 |
| 2023 | 46-24 | 28-8 | 2-6 | 10-6 | 6-4 | 0-0 |
| 2022 | 26-23 | 25-14 | 0-3 | 1-6 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2021 | 24-13 | 24-12 | 0-0 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
Ranked no. 256, Svajda got to the semifinal after beating Chak Lam Coleman Wong 6-3 6-1, Aleksandar Vukic 6-3 6-3 and Elmar Ejupovic 6-1 3-6 6-3.
In the quarter, Zachary defeated Ejupovic (6-1 3-6 6-3). During the match Svajda scored 74 points vs Ejupovic’s 62. Svajda was extremely aggressive to blast 38 winners.
About the serving games, Svajda recorded 3 aces and he committed only 2 double faults. Zachary Svajda lost the serve 3 times and he saved 2 break points. Furthermore, Svajda put 74% of his first serves in, winning 70% (38/54) of the points behind his 1st serve and 47% (9/19) on the 2nd serve. The American broke Ejupovic 5 times after converting 71% of his break points (5/7).
Overall Performance in this tournament
Zachary has conceded 1 set in the tournament to win 57% of the points he played.
Zachary’s best result of the season was reaching the semifinal in M25 Malibu and M25 Wesley Chapel.
Svajda has an overall 13-4 win-loss record in 2023, 7-2 on indoor hard courts (See FULL STATS).
H2H Performance in the tournament (main draw)
Matches, sets, games and points
| Points | Thompson | Svajda |
|---|---|---|
| Match played | 3 | 3 |
| Tot Set | 6 | 7 |
| Tot Games | 54 | 59 |
| Pts | 189-122 | 214-163 |
| Total Points | 311 | 377 |
| Winners | 75 | 86 |
| %Winners | 40% | 40% |
Both Thompson and Svajda played 3 matches. At the moment, Zachary Svajda dropped 1 set while Jordan Thompson hasn’t conceded a set so far. Thompson has played 1 set(s) less than Svajda (6 vs 7). Therefore, Thompson played 5 games less than Svajda. The Australian scored 75 winners (40% of the total points). On the other side, Svajda managed to score 86 winners (40%).
Serve Performance
| Serve | Thompson | Svajda |
|---|---|---|
| Aces | 17 | 11 |
| Avg per match | 5.7 | 3.7 |
| 1st in | 94/145 | 122/179 |
| %1st in | 65% | 68% |
| 1st pts | 75/94 | 86/122 |
| %1st pts | 80% | 70% |
| 2nd pts | 39/51 | 37/57 |
| %2nd pts | 76% | 65% |
Thompson struck 17 aces (5.7 per match). Svajda made 11 aces (3.7 per match). Thompson won 80% points behind his first serve. He was rock solid on his second serve to win 76% of the points. On the other side, Svajda won 70% of the points behind his first serve. He had a solid display on his second serve to win 65% of the points.
How they played the important points
| Breaks | Thompson | Svajda |
|---|---|---|
| Won | 10 | 12 |
| Converted | 10/21 | 12/27 |
| % Converted | 48% | 44% |
| Conceded | 6 | 9 |
| Saved | 5 | 6 |
| % Saved | 83% | 67% |
| Times Broken | 1 | 3 |
The Australian broke his opponents 10 times with a 48% conversion rate. Thompson lost his serve once and he saved 83% of the break points that he conceded. Svajda broke his opponents 12 times with a 44% conversion rate. Svajda conceded his serve 3 times and he saved 67% of the break points that he conceded.
| Thompson | |||||
| R1 Dougaz |
R2 Squire |
1/4 Gray |
Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Score | 6-3 6-4 | 6-4 6-1 | 6-4 6-2 | ||
| Tot Set | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | |
| Tot Games | 19 | 17 | 18 | 54 | |
| pts | 63-40 | 58-37 | 68-45 | 189-122 | |
| Total points | 103 | 95 | 113 | 311 | |
| Winners | 30 | 22 | 23 | 75 | |
| %Winners | 48% | 38% | 34% | 40% | |
| SERVE | |||||
| Aces | 7 | 8 | 2 | 17 | |
| Double Faults | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | |
| 1st in | 37/53 | 28/43 | 29/49 | 94/145 | |
| % 1st in | 70% | 65% | 59% | 65% | |
| 1st pts | 30/37 | 22/28 | 23/29 | 75/94 | |
| % 1st pts | 81% | 79% | 79% | 80% | |
| 2nd pts | 14/16 | 11/15 | 14/20 | 39/51 | |
| % 2nd pts | 88% | 73% | 70% | 76% | |
| Breaks | |||||
| Won | 2 | 4 | 4 | 10 | |
| Converted | 2/4 | 4/7 | 4/10 | 10/21 | |
| Converted % | 50% | 57% | 40% | 48% | |
| Conceded | 4 | 0 | 2 | 6 | |
| Saved | 4/4 | 0/0 | 1/2 | 5 | |
| Saved % | 100% | – | 50% | 50% | |
| Times Broken | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| Svajda | |||||
| R1 Lam Coleman Wong |
R2 Vukic |
1/4 Ejupovic |
Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Score | 6-3 6-1 | 6-3 6-3 | 6-1 3-6 6-3 | ||
| Tot Set | 2 | 2 | 3 | 7 | |
| Tot Games | 16 | 18 | 25 | 59 | |
| pts | 69-45 | 71-56 | 74-62 | 214-163 | |
| Total points | 114 | 127 | 136 | 377 | |
| Winners | 19 | 29 | 38 | 86 | |
| %Winners | 28% | 41% | 51% | 40% | |
| SERVE | |||||
| Aces | 4 | 4 | 3 | 11 | |
| Double Faults | 0 | 3 | 2 | 5 | |
| 1st in | 27/45 | 41/61 | 54/73 | 122/179 | |
| % 1st in | 60% | 67% | 74% | 68% | |
| 1st pts | 19/27 | 29/41 | 38/54 | 86/122 | |
| % 1st pts | 70% | 71% | 70% | 70% | |
| 2nd pts | 15/18 | 13/20 | 9/19 | 37/57 | |
| % 2nd pts | 83% | 65% | 47% | 65% | |
| Breaks | |||||
| Won | 4 | 3 | 5 | 12 | |
| Converted | 4/13 | 3/7 | 5/7 | 12/27 | |
| Converted % | 31% | 43% | 71% | 44% | |
| Conceded | 0 | 4 | 5 | 9 | |
| Saved | 0/0 | 4/4 | 2/5 | 6 | |
| Saved % | – | 100% | 40% | 47% | |
| Times Broken | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | |
Head 2 Head
LWWLWLWLLL
LLWWWWLWWW Tennis Scores in Rome Challenger
- Luke Johnson/Sem VerbeekJohnson/Sem Verbeek – Alexis Galarneau/Edan LeshemGalarneau/Edan Leshem (6-1 6-2) – Stats, scores, rankings
Upcoming matches in the draw
- Jordan ThompsonThompson – (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Seong Chan HongChan Hong – (0-0) – H2H and prediction
