Tatsuma Ito vs Sumit Nagal — Liuzhou CH Round of 32

Liuzhou CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
JPN8
Tatsuma Ito
38 yrs · 180 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWWLLLWLW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 22 October 2018
hard
Sumit Nagal
IND
Sumit Nagal
#241ATP
1543ELO
1476Hard ELO
28 yrs · 178 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
WLWWWWWLLL
Ito T.
6-2 6-3
Nagal S.
Ito T.
662
Nagal S.
230

Tatsuma Ito defeated Sumit Nagal 6-2 6-3 in the Liuzhou CH round of 32 on hard. The upset overturned the form book — Sumit Nagal came in leading the head-to-head 1–0. Tatsuma Ito claimed a first win over Sumit Nagal in two meetings, narrowing the head-to-head to 1–1.

Key context

Head to head

0–1
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2019-08-26US OpenQ1hardSumit Nagal7-6(6) 6-2

Serve vs return

This season
Ito T.serving70% hold

wins 58% of points on serve vs Nagal S.

Nagal S.serving76% hold

wins 61% of points on serve vs Ito T.

Serve advantage — Nagal S.

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
Ito T.Nagal S.
1st serve in·Slight edge
62%
70%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
69%
64%
2nd serve points won·Even
49%
51%
Service points won·Even
61%
60%
Return points won·Even
38%
42%
Break points saved·Even
59%
58%
Aces / match·Clear edge
3.8
1.4
Double faults / match·Clear edge
3.1
1.8

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (188 vs 200). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Ito T.Nagal S.
Clutch Rating·Slight edge
24
33
Break points saved·Slight edge
61
69
Break points won·Dominant
9
35
Deciding sets·Dominant
43
16
Tiebreaks·Dominant
48
84

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

Freshness

Recent load
Ito T.Nagal S.
Freshness·
—
96

Nagal S.: 8 days rest · 1 match (14d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Medium-fastrewards aggression
SlowFast
Final
Albot R.[1]
Kecmanovic M.[6]
6-24-66-3
Semi-finals
Kecmanovic M.[6]
Kavcic B.
3-66-36-4
Albot R.[1]
Gunneswaran P.[7]
6-36-3
Quarter-finals
Albot R.[1]
Wu D.
6-03-66-3
Gunneswaran P.[7]
Fabbiano T.[3]
6-756-16-3
Kecmanovic M.[6]
Li Z.
7-674-66-3
Kavcic B.
Davidovich Fokina A.
7-632-66-1
R16
Wu D.
Ito T.[8]
6-36-4
Fabbiano T.[3]
Zhang Z.
6-46-1
Davidovich Fokina A.
Valkusz M.
6-26-1
Kecmanovic M.[6]
Schnur B.
6-47-65
Li Z.
Sugita Y.[4]
6-46-4
Gunneswaran P.[7]
Safwat M.
6-46-4
Albot R.[1]
Lee D.
6-27-5
Kavcic B.
Martinez P.[5]
6-36-4
R32
Kavcic B.
Coppejans K.
6-36-2
Martinez P.[5]
Wu Y.
7-56-2
Albot R.[1]
Te R.
7-677-61
Kecmanovic M.[6]
Chung Y.
6-11-0
Zhang Z.
Sun F.
6-46-3
Davidovich Fokina A.
Ramanathan R.[2]
7-636-3
Gunneswaran P.[7]
Tatlot J.
6-47-5
Fabbiano T.[3]
Gaio F.
6-766-16-2
Schnur B.
Broady L.
6-25-76-3
Safwat M.
Soeda G.
3-66-36-4
Wu D.
Nedovyesov A.
7-627-63
Li Z.
Oliveira G.
1-67-666-4
Ito T.[8]
Nagal S.
6-26-3
Lee D.
Yang T.
6-26-3
Valkusz M.
Peliwo F.
2-66-26-2
Sugita Y.[4]
Tokuda R.
6-27-5