Ugo Humbert vs James Ward — Cassis CH Semi-final

Cassis CH · CHALLENGER · Semi-final
Ugo Humbert
FRA5
Ugo Humbert
#29ATP
1868ELO
1843Hard ELO
$1.1MYTD
$12MCAREER
28 yrs · 188 cm · Left-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWWWWLWWW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 3 September 2018
hard
GBR
James Ward
39 yrs · 190 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWWLLLLWW
Humbert U.
7-6 6-4
Ward J.
Humbert U.
7762
Ward J.
6340

Ugo Humbert defeated James Ward 7-6 6-4 in the Cassis CH semi-final on hard.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Humbert U.serving90% hold

wins 70% of points on serve vs Ward J.

Ward J.serving85% hold

wins 66% of points on serve vs Humbert U.

Serve-dominated — both hold easily, expect tiebreaks

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

Serve & return on hard

Humbert U.Ward J.
64
Serve
—
15
Return
—

Per-surface Serve / Return Rating (0–100, percentile within the hard field, opponent-adjusted over 52 weeks). About

Statistics

This season
Humbert U.Ward J.
1st serve in·Even
62%
60%
1st serve points won·Even
74%
73%
2nd serve points won·Even
53%
51%
Service points won·Even
66%
64%
Return points won·Even
37%
35%
Break points saved·Even
65%
67%
Aces / match·Clear edge
6.8
8.7
Double faults / match·Clear edge
2.3
3.4

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (200 vs 115). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Humbert U.Ward J.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
70
29
Break points saved·Clear edge
99
86
Break points won·Dominant
37
6
Deciding sets·Dominant
78
36
Tiebreaks·Dominant
91
39

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

Freshness

Recent load
Humbert U.Ward J.
Freshness·
96
—

Humbert U.: 14 days rest · 1 match (14d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Fastbig serves, short points
SlowFast
Final
Couacaud E.
Humbert U.[5]
6-26-3
Semi-finals
Humbert U.[5]
Ward J.
7-636-4
Couacaud E.
Menendez Maceiras A.[3]
6-46-4
Quarter-finals
Ward J.
Otte O.
7-673-66-3
Menendez Maceiras A.[3]
Hoang A.
6-26-756-3
Humbert U.[5]
Bourgue M.
6-36-3
Couacaud E.
Griekspoor S.
3-66-46-1
R16
Humbert U.[5]
Kamke T.
6-47-64
Menendez Maceiras A.[3]
Muller A.
6-27-5
Griekspoor S.
Moraing M.[8]
6-5
Bourgue M.
Halys Q.
6-06-4
Otte O.
Roca Batalla O.
6-36-4
Hoang A.
Benchetrit E.
6-46-756-1
Ward J.
Griekspoor T.
7-613-66-3
Couacaud E.
Bachinger M.
6-46-3
R32
Bourgue M.
Safranek V.
7-651-0
Griekspoor T.
Tomic B.[6]
6-757-57-5
Menendez Maceiras A.[3]
Rinderknech A.
7-676-3
Halys Q.
Moutet C.[2]
7-646-4
Moraing M.[8]
Gombos N.
7-667-5
Humbert U.[5]
Ilkel C.
7-656-4
Muller A.
Evans D.
6-36-4
Otte O.
Stakhovsky S.[4]
7-623-67-5
Bachinger M.
Oliveira G.
6-36-1
Couacaud E.
Berankis R.[1]
6-756-36-4
Griekspoor S.
Karlovskiy E.
6-46-4
Benchetrit E.
Wang T.
6-16-4
Ward J.
Milojevic N.
6-45-76-4
Hoang A.
Barrere G.[7]
3-67-627-5
Kamke T.
Nedovyesov A.
7-56-4
Roca Batalla O.
Kanar J.
6-36-4