Thomas Fabbiano vs Jordan Thompson — Shanghai CH Round of 16

Shanghai CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 16
ITA8
Thomas Fabbiano
37 yrs · 173 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLLWWLWL
2 — 0
Sets
Tuesday, 2 September 2014
hard
Jordan Thompson
AUS
Jordan Thompson
#309ATP
1772ELO
1733Hard ELO
$153kYTD
$9.6MCAREER
32 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWWLWWLW
Fabbiano T.
6-4 6-4
Thompson J.
Fabbiano T.
662
Thompson J.
440

Thomas Fabbiano defeated Jordan Thompson 6-4 6-4 in the Shanghai CH round of 16 on hard. The result followed the form book — Thomas Fabbiano came in leading the head-to-head 1–0. Thomas Fabbiano extended the head-to-head to 2–0.

Key context

  • Match story: Thomas Fabbiano edged a tight contest from start to finish — 6–4 6–4.

Head to head

1–0
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2017-08-28US OpenR64hardThomas Fabbiano2-6 6-2 3-6 6-4 6-2

Serve vs return

This season
Fabbiano T.serving80% hold

wins 63% of points on serve vs Thompson J.

Thompson J.serving86% hold

wins 67% of points on serve vs Fabbiano T.

Serve advantage — Thompson J.

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
Fabbiano T.Thompson J.
1st serve in·Even
64%
60%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
66%
74%
2nd serve points won·Even
52%
54%
Service points won·Slight edge
61%
66%
Return points won·Even
38%
37%
Break points saved·Even
59%
63%
Aces / match·Dominant
2.0
7.2
Double faults / match·Clear edge
2.7
1.3

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (200 vs 199). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Fabbiano T.Thompson J.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
28
70
Break points saved·Clear edge
81
97
Break points won·Slight edge
16
24
Deciding sets·Dominant
28
91
Tiebreaks·Dominant
44
95

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
Nishioka Y.
Devvarman S.[2]
6-46-757-63
Semi-finals
Nishioka Y.
Fabbiano T.[8]
6-40-66-1
Devvarman S.[2]
Vanni L.[5]
1-66-46-4
Quarter-finals
Fabbiano T.[8]
Soeda G.[1]
6-47-60
Nishioka Y.
Udomchoke D.
4-66-26-3
Vanni L.[5]
Bhambri Y.[3]
7-56-736-2
Devvarman S.[2]
Wu D.[7]
6-26-4
R16
Wu D.[7]
Bai Y.
6-26-733-0
Soeda G.[1]
Uchiyama Y.
6-36-3
Bhambri Y.[3]
Yang T.
6-36-746-3
Devvarman S.[2]
Niki T.
6-746-26-3
Fabbiano T.[8]
Thompson J.
6-46-4
Nishioka Y.
Duckworth J.[4]
6-47-62
Udomchoke D.
Millman J.
3-67-646-3
Vanni L.[5]
Singh S.
6-43-66-3
R32
Bai Y.
Zhong S.
3-66-11-0
Udomchoke D.
Chung H.
6-26-1
Devvarman S.[2]
Ito Y.
7-646-3
Soeda G.[1]
Jung J.
6-23-66-2
Yang T.
Edmund K.
7-56-2
Thompson J.
Li Z.
0-67-627-5
Uchiyama Y.
Huang L.
4-66-36-3
Fabbiano T.[8]
Zheng W.
6-36-4
Duckworth J.[4]
Ymer E.
6-43-66-0
Nishioka Y.
Wang C.
6-36-1
Millman J.
Zhang Z.[6]
6-26-2
Vanni L.[5]
Statham J.
3-66-47-5
Singh S.
Kibi Y.
6-16-2
Bhambri Y.[3]
Chen T.
7-56-2
Wu D.[7]
Matsui T.
7-56-3
Niki T.
Takeuchi K.
6-26-3