Gijs Brouwer and Ryan Seggerman will face off in the quarter of the Bloomfield Hills Challenger for the 1st time in their career. They are scheduled to compete on Friday at 12:00 pm on COURT 1. 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 Gijs Brouwer who should win in 3 sets.
As per the initial odds, Gijs Brouwer is the pick to win this match.
Gijs Brouwer -> 1.48
Ryan Seggerman -> 2.49
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 Gijs Brouwer vs. Ryan Seggerman
There is no head to head record between Gijs Brouwer and Ryan Seggerman since this will be the first time that they will fight against each other in the main tour.
Gijs Brouwer
23 - 20win/loss
177
114
Year | Total | Hard | Clay | I.hard | Grass | Carpet |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2024 | 31-27 | 14-12 | 6-5 | 4-5 | 7-5 | 0-0 |
2023 | 24-34 | 5-8 | 3-6 | 12-15 | 4-5 | 0-0 |
2022 | 47-27 | 12-5 | 13-5 | 14-12 | 8-5 | 0-0 |
2021 | 47-25 | 9-5 | 12-10 | 21-10 | 0-0 | 5-0 |
2020 | 20-10 | 13-4 | 5-4 | 2-2 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
Ranked no. 189, Gijs reached the quarter after defeating Christian Langmo 6-1 6-4 and Thai Kwiatkowski 6-7(6) 6-2 6-3.
In the 2nd round against Kwiatkowski, Brouwer recovered from a 1-set down deficit before winning (6-76 6-2 6-3). During the match, Brouwer scored 98 points vs Kwiatkowski’s 78. The Dutch was extremely aggressive to blast 40 winners.
Talking about the service games, Brouwer made 7 aces and he committed only 3 double faults. Overall, Gijs Brouwer was very effective on serve to win 80% (40/50) of his 1st serve and 55% (16/29) on the second serve. However, this didn’t prevent his to concede the serve twice. Brouwer broke Kwiatkowski 6 times after converting 43% of his break points (6/14).
Overall Performance in this tournament
Brouwer has conceded 1 set in this event to conquer 58% of the points he played.
Brouwer has a winning record in the last 9 years having won 59% of his matches (304-210). 6-5 on hard in 2024. In connection with his performance on the same surface of this event, Brouwer has a composed91-54 win-loss record in the last 9 years on hard.
Brouwer’s best result of the season was reaching the semifinal in the Noumea Challenger.
Gijs has a composed 23-19 win-loss record in 2024, 6-5 on hard (See FULL STATS).
Previously in the Bloomfield Hills Challenger
Gijs has never competed in this tournament before.
Ryan Seggerman
16 - 10win/loss
418
348
Year | Total | Hard | Clay | I.hard | Grass | Carpet |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2024 | 26-24 | 13-11 | 12-8 | 1-4 | 0-1 | 0-0 |
2023 | 29-13 | 25-11 | 2-1 | 2-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
2022 | 5-3 | 5-3 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
Ranked no. 475, Ryan got to the quarter after beating Adam Neff 4-6 6-4 6-4, Strong Kirchheimer 6-2 6-3, Kaichi Uchida 7-6(3) 6-1, Ernesto Escobedo 6-4 6-2 and Gijs Brouwer .
In the 2nd round, Ryan had a good straight sets win against Escobedo (6-4 6-2). During the match Seggerman scored 60 points vs Escobedo’s 45. The American was extremely aggressive to blast 27 winners.
About the serving games, Seggerman fired 10 aces and he committed only 3 double faults. Ryan Seggerman was extremely effective on serve to win 77% (27/35) of his 1st serve and 67% (10/15) on the second serve. This was the main reason for not conceding a single break during the match. Seggerman broke Escobedo 3 times after converting 60% of his break points (3/5).
Overall Performance in this tournament
Ryan started his run at this tournament from the qualifications. In the main draw, he has conceded 1 set in the tournament to win 55% of the points he played.
Ryan’s best result of the current year was getting to the semifinal in the Skopje Challenger.
Ryan has an aggregate 15-10 win-loss record in 2024, 8-4 on hard (See FULL STATS).
H2H Performance in the tournament (main draw)
Matches, sets, games and points
Points | Brouwer | Seggerman |
---|---|---|
Match played | 2 | 4 |
Tot Set | 5 | 9 |
Tot Games | 47 | 85 |
Pts | 161-119 | 286-236 |
Total Points | 280 | 522 |
Winners | 66 | 127 |
%Winners | 41% | 44% |
Brouwer played 2 matches while Seggerman competed in 4 matches. Seggerman started his run from the qualifications while Brouwer had a direct access to the main draw. Both players lost a set in the event. Gijs Brouwer lost 1 set, while Ryan Seggerman dropped 1 set. Brouwer has played 4 set(s) less than Seggerman (5 vs 9). Therefore, Brouwer played 38 games less than Seggerman. Brouwer scored 66 winners (41% of the total points). On the other side, Seggerman made 127 winners (44%).
Serve Performance
Serve | Brouwer | Seggerman |
---|---|---|
Aces | 11 | 45 |
Avg per match | 5.5 | 11.3 |
1st in | 83/123 | 165/271 |
%1st in | 67% | 61% |
1st pts | 66/83 | 127/165 |
%1st pts | 80% | 77% |
2nd pts | 24/40 | 61/106 |
%2nd pts | 60% | 58% |
Brouwer struck 11 aces (5.5 per match). Seggerman recorded 45 aces (11.3 per match). Brouwer won 80% points on his first serve. He pretty effective on his second serve to win 60% of the points. On the other side, Seggerman won 77% of the points on his first serve. He had a solid display on his second serve to win 58% of the points.
How they played the important points
Breaks | Brouwer | Seggerman |
---|---|---|
Won | 10 | 11 |
Converted | 10/24 | 11/23 |
% Converted | 42% | 48% |
Conceded | 5 | 13 |
Saved | 2 | 12 |
% Saved | 40% | 92% |
Times Broken | 3 | 1 |
The Dutch broke his opponents 10 times with a 42% conversion rate. Gijs surrendered his serve 3 times and he saved 40% of the break points that he conceded. Seggerman broke his opponents 11 times with a 48% conversion rate. Ryan conceded his serve once and he saved 92% of the break points that he conceded.
Brouwer | ||||
R1 Langmo |
R2 Kwiatkowski |
Total | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Score | 6-1 6-4 | 6-76 6-2 6-3 | ||
Tot Set | 2 | 3 | 5 | |
Tot Games | 17 | 30 | 47 | |
pts | 63-41 | 98-78 | 161-119 | |
Total points | 104 | 176 | 280 | |
Winners | 26 | 40 | 66 | |
%Winners | 41% | 41% | 41% | |
SERVE | ||||
Aces | 4 | 7 | 11 | |
Double Faults | 0 | 3 | 3 | |
1st in | 33/44 | 50/79 | 83/123 | |
% 1st in | 75% | 63% | 67% | |
1st pts | 26/33 | 40/50 | 66/83 | |
% 1st pts | 79% | 80% | 80% | |
2nd pts | 8/11 | 16/29 | 24/40 | |
% 2nd pts | 73% | 55% | 60% | |
Breaks | ||||
Won | 4 | 6 | 10 | |
Converted | 4/10 | 6/14 | 10/24 | |
Converted % | 40% | 43% | 42% | |
Conceded | 2 | 3 | 5 | |
Saved | 1/2 | 1/3 | 2 | |
Saved % | 50% | 33% | 42% | |
Times Broken | 1 | 2 | 3 |
Seggerman | ||||||
Q1 Neff |
Q3 Kirchheimer |
R1 Uchida |
R2 Escobedo |
Total | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Score | 4-6 6-4 6-4 | 6-2 6-3 | 7-63 6-1 | 6-4 6-2 | ||
Tot Set | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 9 | |
Tot Games | 30 | 17 | 20 | 18 | 85 | |
pts | 89-86 | 67-50 | 70-55 | 60-45 | 286-236 | |
Total points | 175 | 117 | 125 | 105 | 522 | |
Winners | 44 | 21 | 35 | 27 | 127 | |
%Winners | 49% | 31% | 50% | 45% | 44% | |
SERVE | ||||||
Aces | 13 | 3 | 19 | 10 | 45 | |
Double Faults | 4 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 12 | |
1st in | 61/97 | 29/58 | 40/66 | 35/50 | 165/271 | |
% 1st in | 63% | 50% | 61% | 70% | 61% | |
1st pts | 44/61 | 21/29 | 35/40 | 27/35 | 127/165 | |
% 1st pts | 72% | 72% | 88% | 77% | 77% | |
2nd pts | 22/36 | 17/29 | 12/26 | 10/15 | 61/106 | |
% 2nd pts | 61% | 59% | 46% | 67% | 58% | |
Breaks | ||||||
Won | 2 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 11 | |
Converted | 2/3 | 4/13 | 2/2 | 3/5 | 11/23 | |
Converted % | 67% | 31% | 100% | 60% | 48% | |
Conceded | 8 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 13 | |
Saved | 7/8 | 3/3 | 1/1 | 1/1 | 12 | |
Saved % | 88% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 194% | |
Times Broken | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Head 2 Head
Upcoming matches in the draw
- Bernard TomicTomic – (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Jeff WolfWolf – Stefan KozlovKozlov (4-4) – H2H and prediction
- Ryan SeggermanSeggerman – Gijs BrouwerBrouwer (0-0) – H2H and prediction