Thanasi Kokkinakis and James Kent Trotter will clash against each other in the 2nd round of the Granby Challenger for the 1st time in their career. They are scheduled to play on Thursday at 6:00 pm on COURT CENTRAL. In the following lines you can find the head to head analysis and prediction.
Prediction, odds and live streaming
The pick for Tennis Tonic is Thanasi Kokkinakis who should win in 2 sets.
As per the initial odds, Thanasi Kokkinakis is the pick to win this match.
Thanasi Kokkinakis -> 1.127
James Kent Trotter -> 5.4
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 Thanasi Kokkinakis vs. James Kent Trotter
There is no head to head record between Thanasi Kokkinakis and James Kent Trotter since this will be the first time that they will play each other in the main tour.
Thanasi Kokkinakis
| Year | Total | Hard | Clay | I.hard | Grass | Carpet |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 15-13 | 8-9 | 7-4 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2023 | 40-26 | 31-18 | 8-5 | 1-1 | 0-2 | 0-0 |
| 2022 | 23-19 | 19-12 | 2-3 | 1-2 | 1-2 | 0-0 |
| 2021 | 33-21 | 15-11 | 18-7 | 0-0 | 0-3 | 0-0 |
| 2020 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
Ranked no. 88, the Australian reached the 2nd round after beating Patrick Kypson 6-2 6-76 6-4.
In the 1st round, The Australian defeated Kypson (6-2 6-76 6-4). During the match, Kokkinakis scored 107 points vs Kypson’s 97. Kokkinakis was very aggressive to blast 41 winners.
Talking about the service games, Kokkinakis blasted 17 aces and he committed only 4 double faults. Overall, Thanasi Kokkinakis was pretty effective on serve to win 73% (41/56) of his 1st serve and 56% (24/43) on the second serve. However, this didn’t prevent his to concede the serve twice. The Australian broke Kypson 5 times after converting 71% of his break points (5/7).
Kokkinakis has a solid win-loss record in the last 9 years having won 62% of his matches (212-129). 18-8 on hard in 2023. Talking about his performance on the same surface of this competition, Kokkinakis has an overall140-74 match record in the last 9 years on hard.
His best result of the year was winning the title the Manama Challenger where he beat Abedallah Shelbayh in the final 6-1 6-4.
The Australian has a composed 26-15 win-loss record in 2023, 18-8 on hard (See FULL STATS).
Previously in the Granby Challenger
Thanasi has never competed in this tournament before.
James Kent Trotter
| Year | Total | Hard | Clay | I.hard | Grass | Carpet |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 11-11 | 4-5 | 1-3 | 6-3 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2023 | 19-13 | 15-10 | 0-1 | 4-2 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2022 | 21-11 | 15-7 | 0-0 | 6-4 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2021 | 2-2 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 2-2 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2020 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
Ranked no. 579, the Japanese reached the 2nd round after beating Strong Kirchheimer 7-65 6-4, Ezekiel Clark 7-5 6-4 and Nathan Ponwith 6-3 7-61.
In the 1st round, Kent had a good straight sets win against Ponwith (6-3 7-61). During the match Kent scored 78 points vs Ponwith’s 67. James was exceptionally aggressive to blast 40 winners.
About the serving games, Kent struck 10 aces and he committed only 7 double faults. James Kent Trotter lost the serve twice and he saved 9 break points. Furthermore, Kent put 58% of his first serves in, winning 83% (40/48) of the points behind his 1st serve and 31% (11/35) on the 2nd serve. James broke Ponwith 3 times after converting 60% of his break points (3/5).
The Japanese’s best result of the current year was reaching the semifinal in M25 Wichita.
James has a composed 7-2 win-loss record in 2023, 7-2 on hard (See FULL STATS).
H2H Performance in the tournament
Matches, sets, games and points
| Points | Kokkinakis | Kent |
|---|---|---|
| Match played | 1 | 3 |
| Tot Set | 3 | 6 |
| Tot Games | 31 | 67 |
| Pts | 107-97 | 246-216 |
| Total Points | 204 | 462 |
| Winners | 41 | 119 |
| %Winners | 38% | 48% |
Kokkinakis played 1 match while Kent competed in 3 matches. Kent started his run from the qualifications while Kokkinakis had a direct access to the main draw. At the moment, Thanasi Kokkinakis surrendered 1 set while James Kent Trotter hasn’t lost a set so far. Kokkinakis has played 3 set(s) less than Kent (3 vs 6). Therefore, Kokkinakis played 36 games less than Kent. Thanasi scored 41 winners (38% of the total points). On the other side, Kent blasted 119 winners (48%).
Serve Performance
| Serve | Kokkinakis | Kent |
|---|---|---|
| Aces | 17 | 47 |
| Avg per match | 17 | 15.7 |
| 1st in | 56/99 | 152/264 |
| %1st in | 57% | 58% |
| 1st pts | 41/56 | 119/152 |
| %1st pts | 73% | 78% |
| 2nd pts | 24/43 | 48/112 |
| %2nd pts | 56% | 43% |
Kokkinakis blasted 17 aces . Kent fired 47 aces (15.7 per match). Kokkinakis won 73% points on his first serve. He pretty solid on his second serve to win 56% of the points. On the other side, Kent won 78% of the points behind his first serve. He had a solid display on his second serve to win 43% of the points.
How they played the important points
| Breaks | Kokkinakis | Kent |
|---|---|---|
| Won | 5 | 7 |
| Converted | 5/7 | 7/16 |
| % Converted | 71% | 44% |
| Conceded | 5 | 27 |
| Saved | 3 | 24 |
| % Saved | 60% | 89% |
| Times Broken | 2 | 3 |
The Australian broke his opponent 5 times with a 71% conversion rate. Thanasi lost his serve twice and he saved 60% of the break points that he conceded. James broke his opponents 7 times with a 44% conversion rate. James conceded his serve 3 times and he saved 89% of the break points that he conceded.
| Kokkinakis | |||
| R1 Kypson |
Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Score | 6-2 6-76 6-4 | ||
| Tot Set | 3 | 3 | |
| Tot Games | 31 | 31 | |
| pts | 107-97 | 107-97 | |
| Total points | 204 | 204 | |
| Winners | 41 | 41 | |
| %Winners | 38% | 38% | |
| SERVE | |||
| Aces | 17 | 17 | |
| Double Faults | 4 | 4 | |
| 1st in | 56/99 | 56/99 | |
| % 1st in | 57% | 57% | |
| 1st pts | 41/56 | 41/56 | |
| % 1st pts | 73% | 73% | |
| 2nd pts | 24/43 | 24/43 | |
| % 2nd pts | 56% | 56% | |
| Breaks | |||
| Won | 5 | 5 | |
| Converted | 5/7 | 5/7 | |
| Converted % | 71% | 71% | |
| Conceded | 5 | 5 | |
| Saved | 3/5 | 3 | |
| Saved % | 60% | 60% | |
| Times Broken | 2 | 2 | |
| Kent | |||||
| Q1 Kirchheimer |
Q3 Clark |
R1 Ponwith |
Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Score | 7-65 6-4 | 7-5 6-4 | 6-3 7-61 | ||
| Tot Set | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | |
| Tot Games | 23 | 22 | 22 | 67 | |
| pts | 91-85 | 77-64 | 78-67 | 246-216 | |
| Total points | 176 | 141 | 145 | 462 | |
| Winners | 46 | 33 | 40 | 119 | |
| %Winners | 51% | 43% | 51% | 48% | |
| SERVE | |||||
| Aces | 15 | 22 | 10 | 47 | |
| Double Faults | 6 | 3 | 7 | 16 | |
| 1st in | 61/104 | 43/77 | 48/83 | 152/264 | |
| % 1st in | 59% | 56% | 58% | 58% | |
| 1st pts | 46/61 | 33/43 | 40/48 | 119/152 | |
| % 1st pts | 75% | 77% | 83% | 78% | |
| 2nd pts | 19/43 | 18/34 | 11/35 | 48/112 | |
| % 2nd pts | 44% | 53% | 31% | 43% | |
| Breaks | |||||
| Won | 1 | 3 | 3 | 7 | |
| Converted | 1/5 | 3/6 | 3/5 | 7/16 | |
| Converted % | 20% | 50% | 60% | 44% | |
| Conceded | 11 | 5 | 11 | 27 | |
| Saved | 11/11 | 4/5 | 9/11 | 24 | |
| Saved % | 100% | 80% | 82% | 262% | |
| Times Broken | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
Head 2 Head
LLWWLWWWWW
LWLLWWLWLL Tennis Scores in Granby Challenger
- Maxime JanvierJanvier – Adam WaltonWalton (6-4 4-6 7-64) – Stats, scores, rankings
- Tung-Lin WuWu – Christian HarrisonHarrison (6-3 6-4) – Stats, scores, rankings
- Alexis GalarneauGalarneau – Thai KwiatkowskiKwiatkowski (6-2 7-66) – Stats, scores, rankings
- Tristan SchoolkateSchoolkate – Arthur CazauxCazaux (6-3 6-3) – Stats, scores, rankings
Upcoming matches in the draw
- Thanasi KokkinakisKokkinakis – James Kent TrotterKent Trotter (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Tung-Lin WuWu – Maxime JanvierJanvier (0-1) – H2H and prediction
- Alexis GalarneauGalarneau – Tristan SchoolkateSchoolkate (0-0) – H2H and prediction
