Denis Istomin vs Lukas Rosol — Almaty CH Semi-final
Almaty CH · CHALLENGER · Semi-final
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 1 October 2018
clay
Istomin D.3-6 6-3 6-4
Rosol L.
Istomin D.
3662
Rosol L.
6341
Denis Istomin defeated Lukas Rosol 3-6 6-3 6-4 in the Almaty CH semi-final on clay. The upset overturned the form book — Lukas Rosol came in leading the head-to-head 3–1, but Denis Istomin had been the form player, winning 3 of their last 5 on clay. Denis Istomin narrowed the head-to-head to 3–2.
Key context
- Match story: Denis Istomin dropped the opening set before beating Lukas Rosol 3–6 6–3 6–4.
Head to head
1–3| Date | Tournament | Round | Surface | Winner | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016-04-25 | Munich | R32 | clay | Lukas Rosol | 6-7(2) 6-4 7-6(2) |
| 2015-09-28 | Shenzhen | R32 | hard | Lukas Rosol | 7-6(4) 6-4 |
| 2012-10-15 | Moscow | R16 | hard | Lukas Rosol | 4-6 6-4 6-3 |
| 2010-07-19 | Hamburg | R64 | clay | Denis Istomin | 3-6 6-4 6-3 |
Serve vs return
This seasonEven 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 season1st serve in·Even
66%
62%
1st serve points won·Even
70%
71%
2nd serve points won·Even
49%
49%
Service points won·Even
63%
62%
Return points won·Even
36%
36%
Break points saved·Even
61%
60%
Aces / match·Even
5.0
4.6
Double faults / match·Clear edge
2.1
3.3
Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (200 vs 200). ATP, WTA & Challenger.
Clutch
Under pressureClutch Rating·Clear edge
29
51
Break points saved·Even
90
89
Break points won·Even
5
3
Deciding sets·Dominant
44
78
Tiebreaks·Dominant
18
72
Performance in the biggest moments — break points, deciding sets and tiebreaks (0–100, higher is better). About
Conditions
Court speed
Medium-slowfavours grinders
SlowFast
Semi-finals
Rodionov J.
Hanfmann Y.[2]
6-47-5
Krstin P.
Lopez Perez E.
6-16-3
Milojevic N.
Basic M.[3]
3-67-636-3
Istomin D.[1]
Rosol L.[8]
3-66-36-4
Quarter-finals
Krstin P.
Cid R.
6-25-76-3
Lopez Perez E.
Yang T.
7-56-3
Rodionov J.
Nedovyesov A.
3-67-57-64
Hanfmann Y.[2]
Clezar G.
6-36-2
Basic M.[3]
Marchenko I.
7-54-2
Milojevic N.
Griekspoor S.
7-56-2
Istomin D.[1]
Kecmanovic M.[7]
6-36-4
Rosol L.[8]
Kamke T.
6-16-4
R16
Hanfmann Y.[2]
Munoz de la Nava D.
6-16-3
Rodionov J.
Avidzba A.
6-37-5
Krstin P.
Pavic A.
6-46-2
Cid R.
Takahashi Y.
6-16-0
Lopez Perez E.
Ignatik U.[8]
6-36-0
Nedovyesov A.
Serdarusic N.[7]
5-76-46-4
Clezar G.
Milojevic N.[6]
6-23-66-1
Yang T.
Statham J.
6-36-757-64
Istomin D.[1]
Safwat M.
6-26-1
Kamke T.
Yevseyev D.
2-66-26-0
Rosol L.[8]
Yang T.
7-623-66-2
Milojevic N.
Nedovyesov A.
6-33-66-1
Basic M.[3]
Oliveira G.
7-645-76-4
Marchenko I.
Kolar Z.
3-66-46-4
Kecmanovic M.[7]
Majchrzak K.
7-654-67-61
Griekspoor S.
Dubrivnyy A.
6-17-5
R32
Milojevic N.[6]
Casanova H.
6-26-3
Krstin P.
Safwat M.[5]
6-46-2
Nedovyesov A.
Khabibulin T.
6-43-66-2
Cid R.
Lee D.
7-57-5
Hanfmann Y.[2]
Masur D.
7-636-1
Statham J.
Ofner S.[4]
6-36-2
Yang T.
Skatov T.
6-06-1
Avidzba A.
Dellien H.[3]
6-46-4
Rodionov J.
Boluda Purkiss C.
3-66-36-2
Clezar G.
Oliveira G.
3-66-36-1
Lopez Perez E.
Uchiyama Y.
5-76-36-2
Munoz de la Nava D.
Yevseyev D.
6-47-65
Pavic A.
Nedelko I.
6-16-3
Ignatik U.[8]
Nagal S.
6-736-46-1
Serdarusic N.[7]
Granollers G.
6-37-64
Takahashi Y.
Hemery C.[1]
3-2
Kolar Z.
Ayap S.
6-36-3
Yevseyev D.
Nedelko I.
6-44-66-4
Kecmanovic M.[7]
Safiullin R.
6-33-66-2
Rosol L.[8]
Karlovskiy E.
2-66-36-4
Kamke T.
Halys Q.[4]
6-26-4
Majchrzak K.
Bublik A.
6-36-3
Yang T.
Gabashvili T.
7-656-4
Griekspoor S.
Escoffier A.
7-54-66-3
Dubrivnyy A.
Ignatik U.
7-656-4
Safwat M.
Sultanov K.
6-24-67-64
Milojevic N.
Auger Aliassime F.[5]
6-41-67-5
Oliveira G.
Statham J.
6-17-64
Istomin D.[1]
Ferreira Silva F.
6-37-5
Marchenko I.
Lopez Perez E.[6]
3-66-36-4
Basic M.[3]
Petrovic D.
6-36-3
Nedovyesov A.
Tashbulatov D.
6-36-1