Strong Kirchheimer and Trey Hilderbrand will clash against each other in the qualifications of the Champaign Challenger for the 2nd time in their career. They are scheduled to play on Monday at 12:30 pm on THE GOLDENBERG COURT. 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 Trey Hilderbrand who should win in 3 sets.
As per the initial odds, Trey Hilderbrand is the pick to win this match.
Trey Hilderbrand -> 1.61
Strong Kirchheimer -> 2.2
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 Strong Kirchheimer vs. Trey Hilderbrand
This will be the 2nd time that Strong Kirchheimer and Trey Hilderbrand clash against each other. The head to head is 1-0 for Kirchheimer (see full H2H stats), but they have never competed against each other on indoor hard courts.
The last time that they squared off, Kirchheimer won 1-6 6-3 7-5 in the qualifications in the Granby Challenger back in July 2024.
Strong Kirchheimer
21 - 28win/loss
618
375
WLWLWWWLWL | Year | Total | Hard | Clay | I.hard | Grass | Carpet |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 24-30 | 14-17 | 2-4 | 8-9 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2023 | 38-29 | 19-16 | 2-4 | 17-9 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2022 | 33-30 | 17-12 | 7-11 | 9-7 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2021 | 19-21 | 12-15 | 6-5 | 1-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2020 | 17-12 | 13-7 | 0-0 | 4-4 | 0-0 | 0-1 |
Ranked no. 645, Kirchheimer got to the qualifications after defeating Reese Stalder 6-3 6-4.
In the qualifications, The American had a good straight sets win against Stalder (6-3 6-4). During the match, Kirchheimer scored 63 points vs Stalder’s 56. Strong was quite aggressive to blast 27 winners.
Regarding the service games, Kirchheimer scored 8 aces and he committed only 2 double faults. Strong Kirchheimer lost the serve twice and he saved 1 break points. Furthermore, Kirchheimer put 67% of his first serves in, winning 64% (27/42) of the points behind his 1st serve and 52% (11/21) on the 2nd serve. Strong broke Stalder 4 times after converting 50% of his break points (4/8).
Kirchheimer has a winning record in the last 9 years having won 55% of his matches (257-210). 6-8 on indoor hard courts in 2024. Talking about his performance on the same surface of this event, Kirchheimer has an overall57-43 match record in the last 9 years on indoor hard courts.
The American’s best result of the current season was getting to the semifinal in M15 San Diego.
Strong has an overall 20-28 win-loss record in 2024, 6-8 on indoor hard courts (See FULL STATS).
Previously in the Champaign Challenger
Trey Hilderbrand
26 - 20win/loss
725
725
LWLWWLWLWL | Year | Total | Hard | Clay | I.hard | Grass | Carpet |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 26-20 | 15-10 | 9-8 | 2-2 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2023 | 17-13 | 17-11 | 0-0 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2022 | 17-9 | 9-5 | 8-4 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2021 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2020 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
Ranked no. 744, Trey reached the qualifications after defeating Viktor Markov 6-1 6-2.
In the qualifications, Trey had a good straight sets win against Markov (6-1 6-2). During the match Hilderbrand scored 55 points vs Markov’s 29. The American was quite aggressive to blast 23 winners.
Talking about serving, Hilderbrand blasted 9 aces and he committed only 2 double faults. Trey Hilderbrand was exceptionally efficient on serve to win 82% (23/28) of his 1st serve and 64% (9/14) on the second serve. This was the main reason for not conceding a single break during the match. Trey broke Markov 4 times after converting 80% of his break points (4/5).
The American has an overall 26-19 win-loss record in 2024, 2-1 on indoor hard courts (See FULL STATS).
Previously in the Champaign Challenger
Hilderbrand has never competed in this tournament before.
H2H Performance in the tournament
Matches, sets, games and points
| Points | Kirchheimer | Hilderbrand |
|---|---|---|
| Match played | 1 | 1 |
| Tot Set | 2 | 2 |
| Tot Games | 19 | 15 |
| Pts | 63-56 | 55-29 |
| Total Points | 119 | 84 |
| Winners | 27 | 23 |
| %Winners | 43% | 42% |
Both Kirchheimer and Hilderbrand played 1 match. Also both players started their run from the qualifications.Both players have not lost a single set in this event so far. Talking about their workload, Kirchheimer and Hilderbrand have played the same amount of sets 2. However, Kirchheimer played 4 games more than Hilderbrand. The American scored 27 winners (43% of the total points). On the other side, Hilderbrand blasted 23 winners (42%).
Serve Performance
| Serve | Kirchheimer | Hilderbrand |
|---|---|---|
| Aces | 8 | 9 |
| Avg per match | 8 | 9 |
| 1st in | 42/63 | 28/42 |
| %1st in | 67% | 67% |
| 1st pts | 27/42 | 23/28 |
| %1st pts | 64% | 82% |
| 2nd pts | 11/21 | 9/14 |
| %2nd pts | 52% | 64% |
Kirchheimer managed to score 8 aces . Hilderbrand blasted 9 aces . Kirchheimer won 64% points behind his first serve. He pretty solid on his second serve to win 52% of the points. On the other side, Hilderbrand won 82% of the points on his first serve. He had a solid display on his second serve to win 64% of the points.
How they played the important points
| Breaks | Kirchheimer | Hilderbrand |
|---|---|---|
| Won | 4 | 4 |
| Converted | 4/8 | 4/5 |
| % Converted | 50% | 80% |
| Conceded | 3 | 0 |
| Saved | 1 | 0 |
| % Saved | 33% | 0% |
| Times Broken | 2 | 0 |
The American broke his opponent 4 times with a 50% conversion rate. Kirchheimer conceded his serve twice and he saved 33% of the break points that he conceded. The American broke his opponent 4 times with a 80% conversion rate. The American was rock solid on his serve as he has never conceded a single service game after saving 0 break points.
| Kirchheimer | |||
| Q1 Stalder |
Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Score | 6-3 6-4 | ||
| Tot Set | 2 | 2 | |
| Tot Games | 19 | 19 | |
| pts | 63-56 | 63-56 | |
| Total points | 119 | 119 | |
| Winners | 27 | 27 | |
| %Winners | 43% | 43% | |
| SERVE | |||
| Aces | 8 | 8 | |
| Double Faults | 2 | 2 | |
| 1st in | 42/63 | 42/63 | |
| % 1st in | 67% | 67% | |
| 1st pts | 27/42 | 27/42 | |
| % 1st pts | 64% | 64% | |
| 2nd pts | 11/21 | 11/21 | |
| % 2nd pts | 52% | 52% | |
| Breaks | |||
| Won | 4 | 4 | |
| Converted | 4/8 | 4/8 | |
| Converted % | 50% | 50% | |
| Conceded | 3 | 3 | |
| Saved | 1/3 | 1 | |
| Saved % | 33% | 33% | |
| Times Broken | 2 | 2 | |
| Hilderbrand | |||
| Q1 Markov |
Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Score | 6-1 6-2 | ||
| Tot Set | 2 | 2 | |
| Tot Games | 15 | 15 | |
| pts | 55-29 | 55-29 | |
| Total points | 84 | 84 | |
| Winners | 23 | 23 | |
| %Winners | 42% | 42% | |
| SERVE | |||
| Aces | 9 | 9 | |
| Double Faults | 2 | 2 | |
| 1st in | 28/42 | 28/42 | |
| % 1st in | 67% | 67% | |
| 1st pts | 23/28 | 23/28 | |
| % 1st pts | 82% | 82% | |
| 2nd pts | 9/14 | 9/14 | |
| % 2nd pts | 64% | 64% | |
| Breaks | |||
| Won | 4 | 4 | |
| Converted | 4/5 | 4/5 | |
| Converted % | 80% | 80% | |
| Conceded | 0 | 0 | |
| Saved | 0/0 | 0 | |
| Saved % | – | 0% | |
| Times Broken | 0 | 0 | |
Head 2 Head
WLWLWWWLWL
LWLWWLWLWL 
Upcoming matches in the draw
- Strong KirchheimerKirchheimer – Trey HilderbrandHilderbrand (1-0) – H2H and prediction
- Alex RybakovRybakov – (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Hady HabibHabib – (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Felix CorwinCorwin – (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Patrick KypsonKypson – Stefan KozlovKozlov (0-1) – H2H and prediction
- Govind NandaNanda – (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Adam WaltonWalton – (1-0) – H2H and prediction
- Keegan SmithSmith – Martin BorisioukBorisiouk (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Patrick MaloneyMaloney – Edoardo LavagnoLavagno (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Saba PurtseladzePurtseladze – Christopher EubanksEubanks (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Micah BraswellBraswell – Oscar WeightmanWeightman (0-0) – H2H and prediction
