Ugo Humbert vs Matteo Viola — Ismaning CH Quarter-final

Ismaning CH · CHALLENGER · Quarter-final
Ugo Humbert
FRA2
Ugo Humbert
#29ATP
1868ELO
1843Hard ELO
$1.1MYTD
$12MCAREER
28 yrs · 188 cm · Left-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWWWWLWWW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 15 October 2018
hard
ITA
Matteo Viola
39 yrs · 188 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWLWLLLLL
Humbert U.
6-1 6-2
Viola M.
Humbert U.
662
Viola M.
120

Ugo Humbert defeated Matteo Viola 6-1 6-2 in the Ismaning CH quarter-final on hard. The upset overturned the form book — Matteo Viola came in defending last year's round of 32.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Humbert U.serving83% hold

wins 65% of points on serve vs Viola M.

Viola M.serving72% hold

wins 59% of points on serve vs Humbert U.

Serve advantage — Humbert U.

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.Viola M.
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.Viola M.
1st serve in·Slight edge
62%
67%
1st serve points won·Clear edge
74%
62%
2nd serve points won·Slight edge
53%
46%
Service points won·Slight edge
66%
57%
Return points won·Even
37%
40%
Break points saved·Slight edge
65%
54%
Aces / match·Dominant
6.8
1.2
Double faults / match·Clear edge
2.3
3.5

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (200 vs 193). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Humbert U.Viola M.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
70
8
Break points saved·Dominant
99
20
Break points won·Clear edge
37
25
Deciding sets·Dominant
78
15
Tiebreaks·Clear edge
91
70

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

Freshness

Recent load
Humbert U.Viola M.
Freshness·
96
—

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

Conditions

Court speed
Fastbig serves, short points
SlowFast
Final
Baldi F.
Sakharov G.
6-46-4
Semi-finals
Sakharov G.
Haerteis J.
6-46-2
Baldi F.
Humbert U.[2]
6-47-5
Quarter-finals
Sakharov G.
Jahn J.
6-33-66-3
Humbert U.[2]
Viola M.
6-16-2
Baldi F.
Krawietz K.
4-66-26-4
Haerteis J.
Masur D.
7-56-3
R16
Baldi F.
Bonzi B.
7-642-67-64
Krawietz K.
Barrere G.[6]
5-77-57-64
Sakharov G.
Travaglia S.[4]
3-66-46-4
Haerteis J.
Klein L.
6-34-67-5
Masur D.
Cachin P.
6-26-2
Humbert U.[2]
Seraphim C.
6-36-4
Jahn J.
Wessels L.
7-656-4
Viola M.
Ward J.
7-51-67-63
R32
Seraphim C.
Mager G.
7-657-65
Humbert U.[2]
Lamasine T.
7-616-3
Ward J.
Halys Q.[7]
6-766-37-63
Wessels L.
Miedler L.[8]
7-6106-3
Haerteis J.
Novak D.[5]
0-67-657-5
Masur D.
Zapata Miralles B.
7-666-3
Cachin P.
Sonego L.[1]
5-76-46-4
Barrere G.[6]
Lemstra K.
7-656-3
Krawietz K.
Grigelis L.
6-47-64
Travaglia S.[4]
Brkic T.
7-56-3
Bonzi B.
Heyman C.
7-54-66-4
Viola M.
Safranek V.
6-46-2
Baldi F.
Trungelliti M.[3]
6-36-4
Klein L.
Erler A.
6-36-4
Sakharov G.
Ojeda Lara R.
6-36-1
Jahn J.
Brown D.
6-11-0