Jay Clarke and Toby Samuel will fight against each other in the final of the Soma Bay Challenger for the 1st time in their career. They are scheduled to play on Sunday at 2:00 pm on CENTRE 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 Toby Samuel who should win in 3 sets.
Toby Samuel -> 1.65
Jay Clarke -> 2.08
Click here to see the updated quotes and live streaming (only selected countries - USA excluded).
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.
Prediction and head to head Jay Clarke vs. Toby Samuel
There is no head to head record between Jay Clarke and Toby Samuel since this will be the first time that they will square off in the main tour.
Jay Clarke
58 - 29win/loss
213
153
| Year | Total | Hard | Clay | I.hard | Grass | Carpet |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 58-29 | 26-8 | 26-9 | 5-6 | 0-5 | 1-1 |
| 2024 | 54-29 | 6-4 | 41-18 | 6-5 | 1-2 | 0-0 |
| 2023 | 34-19 | 10-12 | 21-4 | 2-2 | 1-1 | 0-0 |
| 2022 | 22-27 | 11-12 | 3-4 | 7-6 | 1-5 | 0-0 |
| 2021 | 19-28 | 7-7 | 8-14 | 3-3 | 1-4 | 0-0 |
Ranked no. 213, the Brit reached the final after beating Fares Zakaria 6-1 6-3, Denis Yevseyev 6-4 4-6 6-4, Radu Albot 6-2 6-7(3) 6-2 and Mathys Erhard 6-1 6-3.
In the semifinal, Clarke had a good straight sets win against Erhard (6-1 6-3). During the match, Clarke scored 60 points vs Erhard’s 33. Clarke was exceptionally aggressive to blast 27 winners.
Talking about the service games, Clarke was unable to score even 1 ace for the entire match and he committed only 1 double fault. Jay Clarke lost the serve once and he saved 3 break points. Furthermore, Clarke put 67% of his first serves in, winning 82% (27/33) of the points behind his 1st serve and 38% (6/16) on the 2nd serve. The Brit broke Erhard 5 times after converting 63% of his break points (5/8).
Overall Performance in this tournament
The Brit has lost 2 set in this tournament to win 55% of the points he played.
Clarke has winning record in the last 10 years having won 59% of his matches (351-242). 26-8 on hard in 2025. Regarding his performance on the same surface of this event, Clarke has an aggregate 131-85 win-loss record in the last years on hard.
His best result of the season was winning the title the Skopje Challenger where he beat Nerman Fatic in the final 6-2 6-3.
Jay has a compiled 58-29 win-loss record in 2025, 26-8 on hard (See FULL STATS).
Previously in the Soma Bay Challenger
The Brit has never competed in this tournament before.
Toby Samuel
51 - 16win/loss
436
404
| Year | Total | Hard | Clay | I.hard | Grass | Carpet |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 51-16 | 43-11 | 3-1 | 5-4 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2024 | 1-1 | 1-0 | 0-0 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2023 | 24-14 | 10-4 | 0-0 | 8-6 | 6-4 | 0-0 |
| 2022 | 20-5 | 7-1 | 0-0 | 5-1 | 8-3 | 0-0 |
| 2021 | 1-1 | 1-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
Ranked no. 436, Samuel got to the final after defeating Ilia Simakin 6-4 6-4, Peter Fajta 6-3 7-6(4), Alexandr Binda 6-2 6-3 and Charlie Robertson 6-1 6-1.
In the semifinal, Samuel had a good straight sets win against Robertson (6-1 6-1). During the match Samuel scored 59 points vs Robertson’s 33. Toby was exceptionally aggressive to blast 21 winners.
Talking about serving, Samuel bagged 3 aces and he committed only 1 double fault for the entire match. Toby Samuel was quite effective on serve to win 72% (21/29) of his 1st serve and 71% (10/14) on the second serve. This was the main reason for not conceding a single break during the match. Toby broke Robertson 5 times after converting 56% of his break points (5/9).
Overall Performance in this tournament
The Brit hasn’t dropped yet a set in the tournament to win 57% of the points he played.
Toby’s best result of the current year was reaching the final in M25 Aldershot,M15 Hurghada,M15 Malta and M15 Sharm ElSheikh.
Toby has an aggregate 51-16 win-loss record in 2025, 43-11 on hard (See FULL STATS).
H2H Performance in the tournament (main draw)
Matches, sets, games and points
| Points | Clarke | Samuel |
|---|---|---|
| Match played | 4 | 4 |
| Tot Set | 10 | 8 |
| Tot Games | 91 | 73 |
| Pts | 354-286 | 284-216 |
| Total Points | 640 | 500 |
| Winners | 128 | 112 |
| %Winners | 36% | 39% |
Both Clarke and Samuel played 4 matches. At the moment, Jay Clarke lost 2 sets while Toby Samuel hasn’t dropped a set so far. Clarke has played 2 sets more than Samuel (10 vs 8). Therefore, Clarke played 18 games more than Samuel. Clarke scored 128 winners (36% of the total points). On the other side, Samuel scored 112 winners (39%).
Serve Performance
| Serve | Clarke | Samuel |
|---|---|---|
| Aces | 9 | 12 |
| Avg per match | 2.3 | 3 |
| 1st in | 189/309 | 162/235 |
| %1st in | 61% | 69% |
| 1st pts | 128/189 | 112/162 |
| %1st pts | 68% | 69% |
| 2nd pts | 60/120 | 51/73 |
| %2nd pts | 50% | 70% |
Clarke struck 9 aces (2.3 per match). Samuel recorded 12 aces (3 per match). Clarke won 68% points behind his first serve. He was rock solid on his second serve to win 50% of the points. On the other side, Samuel won 69% of the points behind his first serve. He had a solid display on his second serve to win 70% of the points.
How they played the important points
| Breaks | Clarke | Samuel |
|---|---|---|
| Won | 22 | 14 |
| Converted | 22/51 | 14/36 |
| % Converted | 43% | 39% |
| Conceded | 28 | 14 |
| Saved | 19 | 11 |
| % Saved | 68% | 79% |
| Times Broken | 9 | 3 |
The Brit broke his opponents 22 times with a 43% conversion rate. Clarke dropped his serve 9 times and he saved 68% of the break points that he conceded. Samuel broke his opponents 14 times with a 39% conversion rate. Samuel conceded his serve 3 times and he saved 79% of the break points that he conceded.
| Clarke | ||||||
| R1 Zakaria | R2 Yevseyev | 1/4 Albot | 1/2 Erhard | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Score | 6-1 6-3 | 6-4 4-6 6-4 | 6-2 6-73 6-2 | 6-1 6-3 | ||
| Tot Set | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 10 | |
| Tot Games | 16 | 30 | 29 | 16 | 91 | |
| pts | 64-46 | 111-104 | 119-103 | 60-33 | 354-286 | |
| Total points | 110 | 215 | 222 | 93 | 640 | |
| Winners | 24 | 35 | 42 | 27 | 128 | |
| %Winners | 38% | 32% | 35% | 45% | 36% | |
| SERVE | ||||||
| Aces | 2 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 9 | |
| Double Faults | 2 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 11 | |
| 1st in | 35/56 | 56/91 | 65/113 | 33/49 | 189/309 | |
| % 1st in | 63% | 62% | 58% | 67% | 61% | |
| 1st pts | 24/35 | 35/56 | 42/65 | 27/33 | 128/189 | |
| % 1st pts | 69% | 63% | 65% | 82% | 68% | |
| 2nd pts | 11/21 | 19/35 | 24/48 | 6/16 | 60/120 | |
| % 2nd pts | 52% | 54% | 50% | 38% | 50% | |
| Breaks | ||||||
| Won | 5 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 22 | |
| Converted | 5/6 | 5/19 | 7/18 | 5/8 | 22/51 | |
| Converted % | 83% | 26% | 39% | 63% | 43% | |
| Conceded | 4 | 7 | 13 | 4 | 28 | |
| Saved | 3/4 | 3/7 | 10/13 | 3/4 | 19 | |
| Saved % | 75% | 43% | 77% | 75% | 68% | |
| Times Broken | 1 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 9 | |
| Samuel | ||||||
| R1 Simakin | R2 Fajta | 1/4 Binda | 1/2 Robertson | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Score | 6-4 6-4 | 6-3 7-64 | 6-2 6-3 | 6-1 6-1 | ||
| Tot Set | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 8 | |
| Tot Games | 20 | 22 | 17 | 14 | 73 | |
| pts | 72-65 | 86-72 | 67-46 | 59-33 | 284-216 | |
| Total points | 137 | 158 | 113 | 92 | 500 | |
| Winners | 28 | 36 | 27 | 21 | 112 | |
| %Winners | 39% | 42% | 40% | 36% | 39% | |
| SERVE | ||||||
| Aces | 1 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 12 | |
| Double Faults | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 6 | |
| 1st in | 44/65 | 55/78 | 34/49 | 29/43 | 162/235 | |
| % 1st in | 68% | 71% | 69% | 67% | 69% | |
| 1st pts | 28/44 | 36/55 | 27/34 | 21/29 | 112/162 | |
| % 1st pts | 64% | 65% | 79% | 72% | 69% | |
| 2nd pts | 14/21 | 16/23 | 11/15 | 10/14 | 51/73 | |
| % 2nd pts | 67% | 70% | 73% | 71% | 70% | |
| Breaks | ||||||
| Won | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 14 | |
| Converted | 3/10 | 3/9 | 3/8 | 5/9 | 14/36 | |
| Converted % | 30% | 33% | 38% | 56% | 39% | |
| Conceded | 3 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 14 | |
| Saved | 2/3 | 6/8 | 1/1 | 2/2 | 11 | |
| Saved % | 67% | 75% | 100% | 100% | 86% | |
| Times Broken | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | |
Upcoming matches in the draw
- Jay ClarkeClarke – (0-0) – H2H and prediction