John Patrick Smith vs Tatsuma Ito — Taipei CH Semi-final

Taipei CH · CHALLENGER · Semi-final
AUS
John Patrick Smith
37 yrs · 188 cm · Left-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLLLLLLLL
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 28 April 2014
hard
JPN6
Tatsuma Ito
38 yrs · 180 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWWLLLWLW
Smith J.
1-6 7-6 6-4
Ito T.
Smith J.
17762
Ito T.
66341

John Patrick Smith defeated Tatsuma Ito 1-6 7-6 6-4 in the Taipei CH semi-final on hard. The result followed the form book — John Patrick Smith came in leading the head-to-head 2–0. John Patrick Smith extended the head-to-head to 3–0.

Key context

Head to head

2–0
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2019-07-15NewportQ1grassJohn Patrick Smith6-2 3-6 6-3
2015-07-13NewportQFgrassJohn Patrick Smith6-3 6-7(2) 6-3

Serve vs return

This season
Smith J.serving82% hold

wins 64% of points on serve vs Ito T.

Ito T.serving82% hold

wins 64% of points on serve vs Smith J.

Even serve battle

Each player's serve crossed against the other's return, converted to expected hold of serve. Recent completed matches, ATP, WTA & Challenger. About

Statistics

This season
Smith J.Ito T.
1st serve in·Slight edge
69%
62%
1st serve points won·Even
69%
69%
2nd serve points won·Even
51%
49%
Service points won·Even
63%
62%
Return points won·Even
37%
38%
Break points saved·Slight edge
64%
59%
Aces / match·Slight edge
4.8
3.8
Double faults / match·Clear edge
1.7
3.0

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (200 vs 200). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Smith J.Ito T.
Clutch Rating·Slight edge
16
24
Break points saved·Dominant
86
61
Break points won·Even
6
9
Deciding sets·Clear edge
21
43
Tiebreaks·Dominant
3
48

Performance in the biggest moments — break points, deciding sets and tiebreaks (0–100, higher is better). About

Conditions

Court speed
Fastbig serves, short points
SlowFast

Draw

Final
Muller G.
Smith J.
6-36-3
Semi-finals
Smith J.
Ito T.[6]
1-67-636-4
Muller G.
Soeda G.[4]
6-26-4
Quarter-finals
Ito T.[6]
Weintraub A.
1-66-36-1
Smith J.
Moriya H.[8]
6-36-2
Soeda G.[4]
Wang J.[7]
6-37-68
Muller G.
Lacko L.[2]
6-43-66-4
R16
Lacko L.[2]
Matsui T.
6-46-3
Moriya H.[8]
Saville L.
3-66-26-3
Weintraub A.
Huang L.
6-46-1
Ito T.[6]
Yang T.
6-44-66-2
Smith J.
Chen T.
6-37-62
Wang J.[7]
Krajicek A.
7-646-0
Soeda G.[4]
Jung J.
7-626-2
Muller G.
Sekiguchi S.
7-57-60
R32
Muller G.
Groth S.[5]
7-617-68
Huang L.
Hu H.
6-16-3
Weintraub A.
Chuang T.
6-36-2
Yang T.
Beck K.
4-67-617-5
Ito T.[6]
Peng H.
6-16-3
Chen T.
Ram R.[3]
6-747-656-1
Smith J.
Wang C.
6-47-5
Saville L.
Guccione C.
6-46-1
Moriya H.[8]
Mott B.
6-47-65
Wang J.[7]
Yu C.
5-76-26-1
Krajicek A.
Chiudinelli M.
3-66-36-4
Jung J.
Yang S.
6-16-1
Soeda G.[4]
Hung J.
6-46-4
Sekiguchi S.
Millman J.
6-16-3
Matsui T.
Tang C.
6-06-4
Lacko L.[2]
Wu D.
6-36-2